Perjury under Duress

T0001

I have a Criminal Law exam in a few days and I'm doing some practice questions. I've hit a stump regarding perjury under duress, whereby the threat occurs prior to an act that was committed. For better explanation see the problem case below:

David, a young and impressionable man, starts dating James, a man with a violent and sadistic reputation. James is the leader of a gang of thugs whose primary goal is to intimidate old people in the community. James tells David that if he wants to keep on hanging out with him he is going to have to participate in gang activities. David agrees in principle to participate at some level. One evening he asks David to drive him to a retirement home and David obliges. Once there, James asks David to help him ‘smash the place up’. David is shocked and refuses. James responds: ‘If you don’t smash the place up, I’m going to smash you up’. David and James cause significant criminal damage to the property that evening. Both men are arrested the following day and brought to trial. James is the first to be tried and David is called as a witness and asked to identify the person he was with that evening. Still thinking of James’ threat of violence he fails to identify him and testifies that they were not together that evening. David now faces charges of criminal damage and perjury. Advise him of any defence(s) that may be available to him.

The part in bold is where the problem is.
1. Is there a time limit for threats like this?
2. I'm unsure of any case law regarding this issue.

Any help is appreciated.

Mr. Incognito

Do your own homework

Little CuChulainn

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Do your own homework

Considering the ban on legal advice that is more strictly enforced than ever, is it that much harm to discuss questions like this? I mean, it is a legal discussion forum. I doubt it's homework either. Sounds more like a past exam question.

T0001

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Do your own homework

1. It's not homework
2. If I was able to do it I wouldn't be asking

Mr. Incognito

See those things called books. They are full of cases.

There are zillions of cases on this. Its first year law stuff.

Try opening a book and reading a case instead of putting it on the net.

Even if you got a cogent answer it means nothing unless youve done the research and formed an opinion.

If you want to copy and paste take a journalism degree.

You want to pass a criminal exam. Study criminal law.

Start by reading the question. Advise on defences open to him. Start there. What are the ingredients for duress under 1. Purjury 2. Criminal damage

You will never get a case with the exact same facts. Ever. Law is not binary. It is about extracting the principles of law from previous cases and applying them to new facts and circumstances such that you will be able to form an opinion on whether a particular defence is available or not.

If I say to you oh this qualifies or that doesnt qualify you will have learned nothing. Read the cases, extract the principles and it will become easy.

Unfortunately people are so used to having information online they forget how to criticially analyze and think. I can see it with my own trainees who unless they are expressly told in writing what steps to follow some of them are lost. I generally recommend a career in probate or conveyancing for these people.
People who are able to extract the concepts and apply them make good lawyers. Doesnt that are not, do not.

So, once again. Do your own homework.

Carawaystick

T0001 wrote: »

2. I'm unsure of any case law regarding this issue.

Any help is appreciated.

Have a look at what Willie O Dea did when he was caught lying under oath in the High Court.

Dublinensis

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You want to pass a criminal exam. Study criminal law.

...


People who are able to extract the concepts and apply them make good lawyers. Doesnt that are not, do not.

I'm not entirely sure that that follows. What I mean is that in my experience you pretty much can't fail an undergrad law exam without actively trying.

I think that the OP ought to be given some credit for being engaged enough to ask such a question. The answer might make all the difference in practice but in an exam on a selection of areas drawn from the entirety of Irish criminal law not knowing it is unlikely to have quite as significant an impact.

If I still care about this by this evening, I could dig out my own criminal law textbook from first year and I might find it difficult to come to a view or I might find it easy. But if I were to find it easy it would not be cause for criticism of the OP. No-one is born into this world knowing how to analyse case law, just as no-one is born into this world knowing how to tie shoelaces. You either have the time, energy and capability to be helpful or you don't. I am not sure what is served by an <<Mod deletion>>attack on the OP's work ethic and intellectual capacity (along with those of journalists and probate and conveyancing practitioners).

Mr. Incognito

Dublinensis wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure that that follows. What I mean is that in my experience you pretty much can't fail an undergrad law exam without actively trying.

I think that the OP ought to be given some credit for being engaged enough to ask such a question. The answer might make all the difference in practice but in an exam on a selection of areas drawn from the entirety of Irish criminal law not knowing it is unlikely to have quite as significant an impact.

If I still care about this by this evening, I could dig out my own criminal law textbook from first year and I might find it difficult to come to a view or I might find it easy. But if I were to find it easy it would not be cause for criticism of the OP. No-one is born into this world knowing how to analyse case law, just as no-one is born into this world knowing how to tie shoelaces. You either have the time, energy and capability to be helpful or you don't. I am not sure what is served by a pompous attack on the OP's work ethic and intellectual capacity (along with those of journalists and probate and conveyancing practitioners).

Feel free to do his research for him then.

SetOverSet

OP, read AG v Whelan and R v Hudson and Taylor for a start.