In English law, what name is given to the defence whereby an accused alleges that he or she was unlawfully pressured to perform the act in question?
"Necessity in English criminal law In English law, the defence of necessity recognizes that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person (which would fall under either duress or self-defence) and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate"
"if a police officer was standing at their elbow, hence its name. In English Law the concept of ""irresistible impulse"" was developed in the 1960 case R v. Byrne. The appellant (described as a violent sexual psychopath) strangled then mutilated a young woman, it was alleged that Byrne suffered from violent and perverted sexual desires which he found impossible to control. Lord Parker C.J. broadened the definition of ""abnormality of mind"" to include those lacking ""the ability to exercise will-power to control acts in accordance with [their] rational judgment"". ""Irresistible impulse"" can be pleaded only under the defense of diminished"
"other sections of the act. Victims are extended the ""Tyrell"" defence – that one cannot aid, abet, counsel or procure an offence against oneself – although exactly when a victim is protected can be unclear. Encouraging or assisting a crime in English law Encouraging or assisting a crime is itself a crime in English law, by virtue of the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is one of the inchoate offences of English law. Inchoate means ""just begun"" or ""undeveloped"", and is used in English criminal law to refer to situations where, although a substantial offence has not been committed, the"
"given is that the defence puts the burden of proof onto the defendant, while in all other cases the burden is on the prosecution. The Butler Committee proposed reform, which was repeatedly ignored by successive governments; the Law Commission drafted a Criminal Code Bill in 1989 which altered the rules on insanity, but this was again ignored. Insanity in English law Insanity in English law is a defence to criminal charges based on the idea that the defendant was unable to understand what he was doing, or, that he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong."
"These were personal common law actions. In English law, the doctrinal basis of such claims is now said to be unjust enrichment. With this abstraction has come attempts - with varying degrees of success and controversy - to expand the explanatory power of the principle of unjust enrichment. Examples of the types of claim now falling within the modern English law of unjust enrichment include: Restitution for wrongs refers to a remedy where a gain can be taken away (or 'stripped', 'disgorged', etc.) from a defendant who has committed a wrong, either a tort, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary"
"person may also raise a duress defense when force or violence is used to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge. ""Duress"" in the context of contract law is a common law defence brought about when one of the parties to the contract enjoyed an ascendant position in relation to the other party and abused that position by subjecting the other to ""threats."" A party who has entered into a contract under duress is entitled to rescind or set aside the contract, rendering it voidable (in equity). Duress is a threat of harm made to compel someone"
"court. Obviously, a criminal justice system that could punish only those who had volunteered for possible punishment was unworkable; a means was needed to coerce them into entering a plea. Alternatively, individuals were frequently tried under Admiralty law, as observed by Henry de Bracton. The ""Standing Mute Act 1275"", part of Statute of Westminster of 1275 of Edward I of England, states: It appears to have initially meant imprisonment under harsh conditions: By the reign of Elizabeth I it took the form of ""pressing"" the accused with weights. The procedure was recorded by a 15th-century witness as follows: ""Pressing to"
"Self-defence in English law Self-defence is a legal doctrine which says that a person may use reasonable force in the defence of one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification rather than an excuse, saying that a person's actions were not a crime at all. Self-defence in English law is a complete defence to all non-sexual offences involving the unlawful use of force (i.e. anything from battery to murder). In other words, it results in a complete acquittal of the defendant. Generally speaking, the rationale is that"
"suspects are pressured into committing a crime they would probably not have committed otherwise, but the legal definition of this pressure varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, if undercover officers coerced a potential suspect into manufacturing illegal drugs to sell them, the accused could use entrapment as a defense. However, if a suspect is already manufacturing drugs and police pose as buyers to catch them, entrapment usually has not occurred. Sting operation In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have an undercover law"
"Criminal appeal A criminal appeal was a procedure in English law to bring about the prosecution of an individual accused of some crime. A private individual (the ""appellor"") would accuse another (the ""appellee"") of a crime, without the need for proceedings to be brought by the crown. It possibly descended from the system of weregild. Appeals were among the legal proceedings for which trial by combat was available. An appeal could be used to accuse a subject of high treason. It could also be used by someone when either they or a close relation had been the victim of a"
"Forced confession A forced confession is a confession obtained from a suspect or a prisoner by means of torture (including enhanced interrogation techniques) or other forms of duress. Depending on the level of coercion used, a forced confession is not valid in revealing the truth. The person being interrogated may agree to the story presented to him or even make up falsehoods himself in order to satisfy the interrogator and discontinue his suffering. For centuries the Latin phrase """"Confessio est regina probationum"""" (In English: Confession is the Queen of evidence) justified the use of forced confession in the European legal"
"Encouraging or assisting a crime in English law Encouraging or assisting a crime is itself a crime in English law, by virtue of the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is one of the inchoate offences of English law. Inchoate means ""just begun"" or ""undeveloped"", and is used in English criminal law to refer to situations where, although a substantial offence has not been committed, the defendant has taken steps to commit it, or encouraged others to do so. As in all inchoate offences, the defendant ""has not himself performed the ""actus reus"" but is sufficiently close to doing so, or"
"required ""mens rea"" if he believes in facts which, if true, would make the arrest unlawful; not just that he believes the facts as they are make the arrest illegal – a mistake of fact suffices, a mistake of law does not. There also exist alternative forms of aggravated assault in English law, for example: assault or battery with intent to resist arrest (as above, the arrest must be lawful); and assault on, resistance to, and obstruction of constables. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it is also possible to commit a racially aggravated assault. This is where the"
"an attempt of a police officer to make an unlawful arrest. This offered a complete defense if nonlethal force was used, and would reduce a murder charge to manslaughter if a death ensued. In ""Hopkin Huggett's case"", English officials illegally seized a man to serve in the King's army. Huggett and others observed this and fought to free the man. In the course of the fight one of the King's men, John Barry, was killed and Huggett was put on trial for murder. The English court ruled that since the officer was making an unlawful arrest, the most that could"
"to do something against their will or judgment; especially a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition. - Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) Duress in contract law falls into two broad categories: Professor Ronald Griffin, Florida Agricultural & Mechanical College of Law, Orlando, FL, puts physical duress simply: ""Your money or your life."" In ""Barton v Armstrong"", a decision of the Privy Council, Armstrong (defendant) sought to coerce Barton (plaintiff) into executing a deed relating to the sale of certain companies by threatening to"
"Provocation in English law In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence alleging a total loss of control as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It does not apply to any other offence. It was abolished on 4 October 2010 by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but replaced by a relatively similar defence of loss of control. Under section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 (repealed, see below): The initial burden was on the defence to raise sufficient evidence of provocation. As a matter of"
"loss of control resulting in death. Thus, the Commission recommends a redefinition of provocation to cover situations where a person acts lethally out of fear. This reflects the present view of psychiatrists that most people act in violent situations with a combination of fear and anger in their minds, and to separate the two emotions is not legally constructive. Self-defence in English law Self-defence is a legal doctrine which says that a person may use reasonable force in the defence of one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is"
"at the time of an act which the defendant is accused of. In common law, provocation is established by establishing events that would be ""adequate"" to create a heat of passion in a reasonable person, and by establishing that the heat of passion was created in the accused. The defense of provocation was first developed in English courts in the 16th and 17th centuries. During that period, a conviction of murder carried a mandatory death sentence. Because of that, the need for a lesser offense was inspired. At that time, not only was it seen as acceptable, but it was"
"Undue influence in English law Undue influence in English law is a field of contract law and property law whereby a transaction may be set aside if it was procured by the influence exerted by one person on another, such that the transaction cannot ""fairly be treated the expression of [that person's] free will"". Historically the doctrine had predominantly been invoked where the person who is exercising undue influence over another person either enters into a contract with the affected person or receives a gift from them. However, much of the recent case law relates to three party cases, where"
"Insanity in English law Insanity in English law is a defence to criminal charges based on the idea that the defendant was unable to understand what he was doing, or, that he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong. The defence comes in two forms; where the defendant claims he was insane at the time of the crime, and where the defendant asserts he is insane at the time of trial. In the first situation, the defendant must show that he was either suffering from a disease which damaged the functioning of the mind and led"
"repairing a botched paint job. Economic duress is the use of unlawful economic pressure to compel a party to a contract to agree to demands which they would not have otherwise. In criminal law, when a person is found legally insane because they believed God ordered them to do the crime (""deific-decree""), one interpretation of the insanity is that they acted under a delusion of duress by God. Duress in American law In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat, or other pressure against the person. ""Black's"
"situation where they may be coerced to make a demand with menaces against a third party is likely, foreseeable, or probable, may not be able to rely on coercion as a defence, because they voluntarily placed themselves in such a situation. This issue has arisen, for example, in gang-related violence. The word ""menaces"" was adopted from sections 29(1)(i) and 30 of the Larceny Act 1916. Section 29(1)(i) made it felony for a person to utter, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing demanding of any person with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause, any property or valuable"
"believing that ""a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result."" Historically, the legal protection against compelled self-incrimination was directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions. The legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th century in England. Anyone refusing to take the oath ""ex officio mero"" (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath"
"in a more recent case in Aberporth, also during a sleep terror, where he misperceived that there was an intruder on top of his wife. The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the elements of the offence including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defence even against strict"
"Coercion Coercion () is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats or force. It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, for example: a bully demanding lunch money from a student or the student gets beaten. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, torture, threats to induce favors, or even sexual assault. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary"
"Clinton [2012] 1 Cr App R 26 has received heavy criticism from academics, see Baker & Zhao, ""Contributory Qualifying and Non-Qualifying Triggers in the Loss of Control Defence: A Wrong Turn on Sexual Infidelity,"" Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 76, pp. 254, 2012, available at SSRN: In some common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, and several Australian states, the defense of provocation is only available against a charge of murder and only acts to reduce the conviction to manslaughter. This is known as ""voluntary manslaughter"", which is considered more serious than ""involuntary manslaughter"", and comprises both manslaughter by"
"by the trier of fact. One who is ""under duress"" is forced into an unlawful act. Duress can be a defense in many jurisdictions, although not for the most serious crimes of murder, attempted murder, being an accessory to murder and in many countries, treason. The duress must involve the threat of imminent peril of death or serious injury, operating on the defendant's mind and overbearing his will. Threats to third persons may qualify. The defendant must reasonably believe the threat, and there is no defense if ""a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused"" would"
"describe the defense of duress, as affecting the element of contract intent, mutual assent, or meeting of the minds. Per minas Per minas, in British common law, to engage in behavior ""by means of menaces or threats"". The term comes from Latin. ""Per minas"" has been used as a defense of duress to certain crimes, as affecting the element of ""mens rea"". William Blackstone, the often-cited judge and legal scholar, addressed the use of ""duress ""per minas"""" under the category of self-defense as a means of securing the ""right of personal security"", that is, the right of self-defense. The classic"
"the opening and closing arguments and the cross-examination during the prosecution phase. Since a defence is raised by the defendant in a direct attempt to avoid what would otherwise result in liability, the defendant typically holds the burden of proof. For example, if a defendant in an assault and battery case attempts to claim provocation, the victim of said assault and battery would not have to prove that he did not provoke the defendant; the defendant would have to prove that the plaintiff did. In common law, a defendant may raise any of the numerous defences to limit or avoid"
"charged in cases of attempted harm against police officers or other public servants. Although the range and precise application of defenses varies between jurisdictions, the following represents a list of the defenses that may apply to all levels of assault: Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior known as de minimis harm. Assault can also be considered in cases involving the spitting on, or unwanted exposure of bodily fluids to others. Consent may be a complete or partial defense to assault. In some jurisdictions, most notably England, it is not a defense where the"
"undue influence or their vulnerability was being exploited when they ostensibly agreed to a deal. Children, mentally incapacitated people and companies, whose representatives are acting wholly outside their authority, are protected against having agreements enforced against them where they lacked the real capacity to make a decision to enter an agreement. Some transactions are considered illegal, and are not enforced by courts because of a statute or on grounds of public policy. In theory, English law attempts to adhere to a principle that people should only be bound when they have given their informed and true consent to a contract."
"Illegality in English law Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase ""Ex turpi causa non oritur actio"", meaning ""no cause of action arises from a wrong"". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent"
"self-defensive force for the Norfolk farmer, even if robbers had trespassed on his property. In that case, Mr Martin was found to have diminished responsibility for his actions, because he was mentally ill. One who is ""under duress"" is forced into something. Duress can be a defence for all crimes, except murder, attempted murder, being an accessory to murder and treason involving the death of the Sovereign. In ""R v Howe"" it was held that to allow the defence of duress as a defence to murder would, in the words of Lord Hailsham, withdraw the protection of the criminal law"