Download
1 / 1
10 likes | 25 Views
This case analysis discusses the overruling of the Lynch case, which established that duress cannot be used as a defence in murder cases. The House of Lords ruled that duress is not available as a defence to either the principal or accessory in a murder. However, the case also acknowledged that duress may be considered as a defence if there is a threat of death or serious personal injury. This analysis explores the implications of the ruling and its impact on future murder cases.
E N D
BY JAMIE WILLSHER R v Howe 1987 and DPP v Lynch - Overrule This case made it clear that duress was not available as a defence to any of the parties to an offence of murder. The Defence had fallen the evil influence of a man called Murray and, as a result, had assaulted one person and then actually killed a man on Murray’s orders. The House of Lords ruled that the defence of duress was not available as the principal offender in one murder, or as the secondary party to the other murder. In their judgement, the Lords also stated obiter that duress should not be available to someone who had been charged with attempted murder. He was found guilty Held: Using the 1966 Practice Statement to depart from the decision in Lynch. Duress is not available as a defence to murder either to a principal or accessory. • Duress not available for attempted murder • Defence was an accessory to murder in that he drove a car to a place under threats from an IRA gunman M. Defence waited while M and his associates killed a policeman, and then drove them away. • Held: A 3-2 majority in the House of Lords allowed his defence of duress. The threat must be a threat of death or serious personal injury; • Threats to damage property, or threats of any other kind, are not sufficient. • Not guilty but would be now
