defences (1 Viewer)

[= Jennifer =]

for a complete defence the syllabus says "self defence necessity" whilst the heinamenn book seperates them as "self defence" "necessity" which is correct? [i know i shouldnt question the syllabus as being wrong but sometimes it is for eg the business studies one] thanks guys

 

[townie]

i always classify them as seperate defences, however, it is understandable how they are similar. so, i dunno, watever ur more used to doing i guess

 

[Teoh]

I split them...because I think self-defence can be used as a defence for murder. Whereas necissity (sp?) can't be used as a defence for murder [R vs. Dudley and Stevens (no date)]- wahhh I helped u for a change

 

[overthaedge]

Yeah I split them too.

 

[carlz_07]

yep, it's "self defence" and "necessity" because they are different.. take that case of those guys out on the water in a boat and they killed one of the guys and ate him out of necessity. You can't say that was self defence so I'd say it proves the case for them being separate.

 

[myg0t]

I split them...because I think self-defence can be used as a defence for murder. Whereas necissity (sp?) can't be used as a defence for murder [R vs. Dudley and Stevens (no date)]- wahhh I helped u for a change

they can both be used

 

[santaslayer]

They're both very seperate defences.

Was the Dudley case about the guys that cannabalised this other man? If so, it was only in that particular case that necessity was rejected as a defence because a man's life was too important.

 

[Gemstone]

They're both very seperate defences.

Was the Dudley case about the guys that cannabalised this other man? If so, it was only in that particular case that necessity was rejected as a defence because a man's life was too important.

Yeah that was the Dudley case. Was it only in that case. I thought it set a precedent.

 

[hiphophorray123]

for a complete defence the syllabus says "self defence necessity" whilst the heinamenn book seperates them as "self defence" "necessity" which is correct? [i know i shouldnt question the syllabus as being wrong but sometimes it is for eg the business studies one] thanks guys

i used 'necessity' in the trial exam when it was 'self defence'

i lost marks..

so dont question the sylabus lol

 

[Tim_Shady]

self defence is when u commit a crime knowingly to protect yourself.. but remember the key point to this is REASONABLE FORCE - eg. if someone comes at u with a spoon, dont shoot them!

neccessity is when u knowingly commit a crime to prevent an even worse evil happening... i think the R vs. Dudley and Stevens sums it up - they killed one bloke to save 2 dying.. yeh its morally wrong, but technically its right

BUT: here is my question - wat is the difference between Necessity and Duress?

 

[Teoh]

i think the R vs. Dudley and Stevens sums it up - they killed one bloke to save 2 dying.. yeh its morally wrong, but technically its right

BUT: here is my question - wat is the difference between Necessity and Duress?

Dudley and Stevens were jailed, necessity isn't a defence to murder.

Necessity = Committing crime to prevent a worse outcome
Duress = Committing a crime under pressure/influence

 

[Tim_Shady]

oh thats right - Necessity and Duress - although they are complete defences there are the 2 levels of complete defece - "Absolute" (aquittal) and "Qualified" (lesser sentence; reduces murder to manslaughter etc.)

Thanks for that