In such a situation, Pig Wilson had to knock her out. Yet the law does not give immunity or allow for a defense for all three individuals. If the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence that can be enough. To put it more precisely, on committing the murder of Garlic, she could probably be shocked.
The defense of necessity failed and the defendants were convicted of murder. Thus, relying on self defense, Margaret will not be held liable for the murder of George. It is clear that the defendant genuinely held such a belief. Further in most cases of duress and necessity, an innocent bystander is harmed and it was held that the law needed to protect innocent civilians over those choosing to act in defiance of the law out of pressure exerted on them.
At the same time, this case reveals the full extent to which the self-defence law is important to grant individuals with legal possibilities to defend themselves from offenders. Bert, because the defendant discriminated his victims at the first place.
Therefore, his actions could not be interpreted as self-defence. The plaintiff seems to have prepared to kill Mr. On analyzing the Chive, Garlic, Tarragon and Pepper case, it is important to dwell upon two episodes, which reveal situations, when self-defence could have been applied.
Second, the level of violence may include killing the assailant. What is meant here is the fact that Pepper provoked Tarragon for she mocked at her, although she was aware of her mental health problems. Bill, in accordance with the precedent set, cannot be allowed to use force against Tony to prevent AAA from killing him.
However, as Tony, the victim, did not personally pose a threat to Bill, the defense of private defense cannot apply in this situation. However, duress does not constitute a defense to murder and therefore Dave will not be able to rely on it. At this moment, she saw Pig Wilson attempting to knock her out or probably murder.
Dave could try and rely on private defense for exoneration. Thus, Bill will not be able to raise the defense of self-defense, necessity or duress ND will be convicted of murder. In fact, her case is similar to the case of R v Lindsay AER Dwhere Lindsay used sword to defend himself from three mask intruders, who threatened him with the weapon.
Furthermore, if a person is prosecuted for self-defence, the Court poses the question: The other inconvenience on the case is that Jack did not deny trying to kill his victim but the court determined his case by saying the gun was malfunctioned.
The force exerted by the defendant was therefore necessary.
Therefore, Pepper could use any plausible mean to stop Tarragon and to save her life. The cases discussed above reveal the full extent to which it is difficult to define actions of individuals as the manifestation of self-defence.
In contrast, Pepper had the right to use the full-defence. Along with such cases as the case of Tony Martinit is worth mentioning legal acts, such as Criminal Law Act of and Human Rights Act of As the circumstances can fall into the sphere of self defense, and her behavior may not be considered blameworthy, the defense could be allowed.
Public policy issues relating to the defenses are different, with duress requiring more limitation that necessity or self defense. The defense would operate if the defendant Bill thought he was facing an unjust threat from the victim and to avoid such a threat used a reasonable level of force in circumstances.
Of the cases where it has been recognized, as per the requirements stipulated for the defense to be available in Re AAADave would be able to rely on necessity to acquit him of the charge.
This is because Margaret only harmed an individual who was posing a direct threat to her even while she did so by complying to his demands -a case of duress that would not be available. Dave could claim that he acted after having tried all other means to extract Cedi from the pot-hole and therefore any reasonable person facing the threat as perceived by the defendant would have reacted in a similar manner.
However, it would be difficult to ascertain whether the threat posed by Cedi was unjust. Yet, Bill cannot satisfy the conditions of either defense.
He attempted twice to kill him with no success.
Chive slaughtered Garlic and Pig Wilson was the next. As there were no individual issuing threats in this case, it cannot be a case of duress of wreath. Stricter conditions objective tests are therefore imposed for the defense of duress to succeed than in self defense subjective conditions.
About this resource This Law essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.1Simple criminal damage finds a person guilty of criminal damage if they recklessly destroy or damage property belonging to another person. In order to prove a defendant liable to simple criminal damage the following elements have to be proved.
Home Law Essays Criminal Law, Problem Question a concession of human frailty could not be the basis for criminal law Criminal Law, Problem Question – Defenses By Dark person would reflect that one innocent human life is at least as valuable as his own and that therefore, the defendant would not be choosing ‘lesser of the two evils’.
This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
A problem question criminal liabilities across a range of different offences. Problem Question Examples. Problem questions can seem daunting as you are faced with a big scenario with various things happening, and it.
Essay: Criminal law problem question In this scenario, Jack is guilty for Pratt murder and attempted murder of Bert. Jack’s attorney fails to understand that jack was really determined to kill Bert. Criminal Law Problem Question Essay Traditionally the self-defence law was the subject to heat debate between opponents and proponents of the law.
On the one hand, the self-defence is essential to protect individuals from the violent acts from the part of.Download