Must the threat be the sole reason the accused committed the offence?
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220 (CA) FACTS: The accused claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and in addition he said he needed the money that he stood to earn as he was under severe financial pressure due to a large debt he owed his bank. Furthermore, he had been threatened with the disclosure of his homosexual propensities. The trial judge told the jury that they should allow the defence only if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of [...], providing he would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury.
Answer
the cumulative effect of all the threats
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Must the threat be the sole reason the accused committed the offence?
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220 (CA) FACTS: The accused claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and in addition he said he needed the money that he stood to earn as he was under severe financial pressure due to a large debt he owed his bank. Furthermore, he had been threatened with the disclosure of his homosexual propensities. The trial judge told the jury that they should allow the defence only if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of [...], providing he would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury.
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
Must the threat be the sole reason the accused committed the offence?
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985] Crim LR 220 (CA) FACTS: The accused claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and in addition he said he needed the money that he stood to earn as he was under severe financial pressure due to a large debt he owed his bank. Furthermore, he had been threatened with the disclosure of his homosexual propensities. The trial judge told the jury that they should allow the defence only if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of [...], providing he would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury.
Answer
the cumulative effect of all the threats
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it if the threat of death or serious injury was the sole reason for the defendant committing the crime. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that this was a misdirection. The jury were entitled to find the defence where the defendant acted because of <span>the cumulative effect of all the threats, providing he would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.