Starglimmer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Boris had a gambling habit and he started to look for new ways to fund it. He visited Scarface, a local loan shark to discuss the possibility of a loan. Scarface offered him a loan in return for him visiting a few punters to collect debts. Boris agreed to this. For some months Boris continued to visit various addresses in the neighbourhood with two other employees of Scarface, Dolly and Spike, asking people who owed money to pay up. At times intimidation was used and people were threatened with violence. One day Scarface asked Boris to go to a betting shop the following day with Dolly and Spike and set fire to it because the owner owed him money and had not paid up following earlier threats. Boris was immediately uneasy because this seemed much more serious than his previous activities so he told Scarface that he didn’t want to do it. Scarface warned him that if he didn’t do as he was told he would be ‘six feet under’ and he would see to it that his wife found out about his dubious activities. Boris was extremely scared of Scarface. However, he decided not to go to the police because they would find out about his criminal activities and Scarface would retaliate if Boris informed on him.

The next day Boris went to the betting office with Dolly and Spike and started a fire. The owner of the shop, Ollie, managed to escape but was severely burnt. As Boris was running away from the fire there was an explosion and he saw a child, Alex, running away from the direction of the building into the road. Boris saw that a car was coming and he ran into the road and grabbed Alex hurling him out of the path of the car. The child landed awkwardly on the path and fractured his wrist. Boris was unharmed.


Oral presentations: At Boris’ trial for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Ollie contrary to s.20 Offences against the Person Act 1861 the trial judge directed the jury that because of the effect of the case of Hasan (2005) UKHL 22, the defence of duress was not available to Boris. Boris was convicted of the s.20 offence on Ollie and now appeals against his conviction on the basis that the judge misdirected the jury.

Prepare a 5-10 minute presentation including no more than 3 authorities in support of your submission that the trial judge misdirected the jury (for the appellant)
0
reply
Starglimmer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#2
I've found the cases:
R v Shepherd --> it's about the nature of the organisation and the knowledge held by D.

R v Valderrana-vega --> duress may be a defence if D actly solely basedbon the threat of death/injury.

R v Cole --> committed a specific crime due to the threat of death/injury. The causal nexus.

Does anyone know if these correct to submit. Help would be much appreciated. Thanks :-)

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Starglimmer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
If anyone gets something similar, these arguments are valid, it's best to swap R v Cole for a quote from Lord Bingham in Hasan whom stated: it is up to the jury to decide whether there was an association....

This should get you a 2.1, that's what I got
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (33)
34.74%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (9)
9.47%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (4)
4.21%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (27)
28.42%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (14)
14.74%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (8)
8.42%

Watched Threads

View All