X will not be successful in applying the defence of neccessity. In criminal law, necessity is not primea facie a criminal defence. The defence, however, does apply in certain circumstances as an area of reform in the law. The land mark case, R v Dudley and Stephen (1884) 14 QBD 273 gives an example of a scenario when the defence can apply, even though it was contravacial. Looking at the scenario, the defence will not apply to X because he had all the time to dispose of the firearm, but even if he had taken it to protect his life he should not have kept it. There are three elements to the defence of necessity. The first element of the defence of necessity is that X should have been in danger. The danger as stated by legal authorities should be foreseeable. Second, he should not have had another alternative to picking the gun from y. Third; the harm avoided must be comparable to the harm inflicted.
X will be successful in claiming the entrapment. The first point to note is that X is not a habitual thief and, therefore, was not likely to have not committed the offence if the authorities did not place the wallet at the scene. There are three conditions for the defence of entrapment to succeed. Firstly, the government official influenced the decision of the accused person. Secondly, the government official provided the occasion for the commission of the offence. Lastly, the person was not willing to commit the offence earlier. The difference between this scenario and the case mentioned is that in the case of Farley V the state, the accused person had the intention to commit the robbery and evidence was adduced through witness testimonies in court. In the scenario, the accused was entrapped to commit the offence.
The defence of duress is invoked when one is forced do an act or an omission that is unlawful. There should be threats of imminent danger both to the family and to the person and could also include grievous body harm. The case of Attorney general V Whelan [1934] IR 518 established the principle. It has been established by case law that the threats to a person’s family cannot be quantified. The two stage test for duress is that: Did the defendant really believe that they were in danger? In law, this is called the subjective test. The other test is with regard to the test of a reasonable man: Would a man by the street consider that as duress? In the case scenario, the danger feared by X is not imminent; therefore, it would not qualify for duress. In the case, therefore, X will argue that he has he faces imminent danger together with his family based on the history with the gang but the prosecution will argue against this stating that the danger was not imminent but a creation of the witness
The defence attorney in this case will have to argue that his client x acted on self-defence. The position of the law with regards to imperfect and perfect self-defence as in the case of State of North Carolina V Judy Ann was pointed out, she had the buttered wife syndrome which had resulted from the long term abuse by her spouse She was, therefore, protecting herself from the danger which was imminent from the aggressor, who was her husband. The defence can argue from the imminent danger point of view. This was advanced by Lord Griffith stating that a man who does pre-empt danger can be the first to attack. Beckford vs. R {1988} AC 130.The prosecution on the other hand, can argue that the danger was not imminent and the circumstance only provided the motive for X to kill. Furthermore, X had all the time to plan, take the gun and shot. Meaning, she had the mens rea and the Actus reus. Therefore, she actually commited the offence making it murder. She as in the case of State V North carolina had the imperfect self-defence, that where a wife who had shot the husband felt if he was still breathing, then shot him twice making it murder.
Works Cited
Lippman, Matthew . Contemporary Criminal Law: Concepts, Cases, and Controversies. 2, illustrated. New York: SAGE, 2009.
