Duress + Attempted Murder

Ava

can someone clear this up once and for all.

some contention as to whether duress is availabel for ATTEMPTED murder?

mcauley's text says no my lecturer says yes.

what does the current law state?

Thirdfox

You wouldn't happen to be in Trinity studying law would you?

What does Charleton say on the matter?

*edit: of course you're not in Trinity... you're doing the FE1s... stupid me!*

impr0v

It's not a valid defence to attempted murder in the UK, from a case called R v Gotts which is fairly recent, 1991 or 92. I can't remember the current Irish situation, but I suspect it remains to be seen as to whether the Irish Courts will follow Gotts. Open to correction on this.

padser

I thought it was available for attempted murder although I never heard of a case where it was raised for attempted murder.

Also P A Mcdermott told us it probablywould be available if you were an accomplace before or after the fact in certain situations, although strictly speaking as the law stands it is not. His example was if you were in a car, someone jumps in and says 'iv just murdered someone' (or you see them murdering someone) and points a gun at you and says drive. Technically your an accomplace, and so technically under particiapation you are guilty of same crime as principle, in this case murder. And duress is not available for murder. Therefore you would have no defence. However he reckoned if it came up HC or SC would overrule law. (god that brings back great memories of studying criminal law, what i wouldnt give to swap it for land law this yr!!!)

besty

padser wrote:

(god that brings back great memories of studying criminal law, what i wouldnt give to swap it for land law this yr!!!)

That would be a dream come true.

Ava

hell no! give me land or constitutional over criminal any day!

hullaballoo

Ha! Poor misguided Trinity students! Until you have experienced the might of Andrew Lyall, you are unable to judge these issues.

Thirdfox

Likewise in regards Gerard Hogan

Eru

Duress can only be used as a defence if you were under threat of more serious harm than you were forced to commit.

IE: If you were too be murdered unless you punched someone, duress is a defence. You cannot in turn murder someone as you are merely replacing your body with theirs and both are equal (some may not agree )

Also, when looking at duress, it would not apply if you had an oppertunity to escape from the threat or had been in the realms of safety after the initial threat.

In this case it would be for witnesses who are threatened with death but walk into a court room full of Gardai and still commits purgury as they had an attempt to bring the duress to the attention of the authorities while in reasonable safety.

Note: That being said, how vulnerable are Irish courts? Even the four courts.

Victor

Remind me. Attempted murder is the charge when you planned, organised and carried out your plan, but it didn't work out? The only saving grace is you failed.

padser wrote:

His example was if you were in a car, someone jumps in and says 'iv just murdered someone' (or you see them murdering someone) and points a gun at you and says drive. Technically your an accomplace, and so technically under particiapation you are guilty of same crime as principle, in this case murder. And duress is not available for murder. Therefore you would have no defence. However he reckoned if it came up HC or SC would overrule law. (god that brings back great memories of studying criminal law, what i wouldnt give to swap it for land law this yr!!!)

No, technically I would be a victim of subsequent crimes (assault, kidnapping, ....).

The only thing I could be done for is driving offences - I don't have a driving licence, but then I could use the defence of duress.

The rule when correctly applied, would examine my motives and my relationship with the scenario. My relationship would be after the fact and my participation does not change the outcome.

The defence of duress is about if a guy gets into my car, points a gun at me and tells me run someone down. Now, I have the choice of kill (and possibly be killed myself anyway) or be killed. The law cannot allow two killings, so it will accept mine.

There was an interesting twist on it in a film where a man and his daughter were kidnapped and unles the man killed the governor, both would be killed. Now would he have a defence? Killing one to save two (of course many an assassin gets killed in the heat of the moment).

Eru

Victor wrote:

There was an interesting twist on it in a film where a man and his daughter were kidnapped and unles the man killed the governor, both would be killed. Now would he have a defence? Killing one to save two (of course many an assassin gets killed in the heat of the moment).

There is allowances for killing for the greater good is there not? And if it was your daughter would you give a ****?

Victor

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

There is allowances for killing for the greater good is there not?

I'm not sure if the governor would have seen it that way.

Nick of Time http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113972/

Eru

Victor wrote:

I'm not sure if the governor would have seen it that way.

Nick of Time http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113972/

Well I was actually thinking along the line of wars and police etc but again, my daughter is more important too me than any other person so legal or not I dont care.

Sangre

If I remember my McAuley days you can't use duress as a defense for a murder or attempted murder. There is policy reasons for it as the court would be effectively putting one life above another.

EducatedGuess

I agree with Sangre, duress can't be used as a defense for murder or attempted murder. Attempted murder remember is just that, you still intended to murder the person, its just that they survived. The intention was there and the defences for attempted are that of murder. Although I can understand Karlito's point of view about members of family. Its a different story when it happens to someone you know.