Any legal-eagles out there?

[Disco Muppet]

No, I'm not in trouble :p

I'm doing some study for an up-coming legal exam and as such, I've come to a bit of a stumbling block, figured I might try and engage in some witty legal repartee with a fellow aulrovian or two :p
The scenario we're given is an escaped con threatens a lady and her son (and dog, what a bastard :D ) if she doesn't rob a servo and bring him $1k.
She robs the servo, gets 3k, but decides to only give him one and keep 2k for herself. Question is, can she argue duress.
Methinks no, as her deciding to keep the 2k is a reassertion of her will and as such she was no longer under duress.
Happy to discuss this via PM if Inc. doesn't want legal-talk cluttering the gen. chat forum :)
Cheers
Muppet

[sheerluck]

And there was me thinking you'd been caught for soliciting again....:angel:

My legal studies were a long time ago in post-grad/professional qualifications, so I wouldn't want to misdirect you.

Either way, Make sure you hang the bugger :D

[Marshall]

One could argue she still committed the crime under duress, and it would be reasonable to assume she would otherwise not have comitted the crime had it not been for the duress exerted upon her.
She may come into trouble for the posession of stolen goods though...

[isuzurover]

What do the precedents say in the Law Databases???

[Disco Muppet]

Relevant case law I'm using is R v. hurley/ murray in which the eight elements of duress are outlined, R v. hudson/taylor which is the threat of future violence. It'd depend on wether or not she had the intention of taking any extra money before or after she actually committed the robbery I guess. But surely if she's re-affirmed her will, in order to profit from the robbery then it would indicate that the shed had at that point failed the subjective test? Perhaps she could argue duress for armed robbery but, as marshall says not for possession of stolen property.

[Eevo]

Eevo representing the defence your Honour.

robbing the servo was a crime done under duress. my client cannot be held responsible for this your Honour.

how much money was taken is a separate issue.
what if she only got $500 from the raid?

the con demanded 1k, not 3k.
what was she meant to do with the extra 2k?

going to the police with it could've put her life at risk from the escaped con.
my client had no other choice but to keep the money for her safety and the safety of her child.

also, if the con later demanded she commit another crime for money, she would of been able to produce the money without having to commit a dangerous robbery and possibly harm other people. my client did what was in the best interests of the community.

[Debacle]

There is no proof that she intended to profit from the robbery. You don't go and shove a shotgun in someones face and say I only want $1000. When she realised that she had more than she needed she couldn't really go back to the servo and say "hello, robbed you the other night, didn't need it all, here's your change". The fact that she committed it under duress means that she could not have been thinking in a rational way.

[THE BOOGER]

At least 1 friendly expert to say she was suffering PTSD after the robbery so was not responsible for her actions after the robbery, and was under duress during it:)

[dullbird]

I would possibly think there are two separate incidents (charges)

the robbery I would guess could be defended with the defence that it was done under duress...

BUT
I think it has a lot to do with what she does wit the money....

I think if she spent the money then perhaps she could be prosecuted under section 188/189, 189B of the crimes act???

in section 189B it states that if the person disposing of stolen property when they know it was stolen (and she would) is an offence and the person is liable to be convicted without proof of the stealing taking place.

the only thing about that text is there is no definition of the word property to see whether it could be seen as Money...although in the description one example of disposal is embezzlement so one would thinks so

I would still think that the defence for the robbery committed under duress would still stand, and could get her off however she would have to answer to other possible charges in relation to the money such as the one I pointed out above.

that's just my guess and stab in the dark :)

[Disco Muppet]

The question says he asks for "At least $1000".
So no, she couldn't go back and give it to the servo, but she could have given it to the convict. That way her defence of duress would be damn well bulletproof. But yes, I'd say with the information I have, Robbery is covered by duress, what she did after with the money will impact what else she could be charged with :)
Thank you kindly folks.
Want to do the other 3? :p

[dullbird]

That was just my guess...I wouldn't be using it to answer your essays or exams hahahah this is not my field of expertise. :D

[Disco Muppet]

:D It's all appreciated.
I quite like the irony of "constructive murder"
Nice little oxymoron there.

[FeatherWeightDriver]

I would use my phone call to ring this mob Not Guilty Criminal Defence Lawyers, Sydney, Parramatta - Nyman Gibson Stewart (http://www.notguilty.com.au/)

What could possibly go wrong... :wasntme:

[Flipper]

I would look at it this way, where the escaped con is taking from the servo who are known robbers in price fixing.
The lady has all rights to take 2k in stolen moneys for being caught and exposing the motive of the escaped con on AULRO.
If that doesn't work I will think of something else. Lol

[V8Ian]

This is 2013, the escapee needs counselling, compensation and no conviction recorded; he's the victim.........he was short changed. ;)

[Bigbjorn]

Your honour, no harm done, no one injured. The servo got $1000 back and the coppers split the $2000 between them.

[frantic]

One question . Is this about the crimes committed and what she COULD be charged with as to hand over $1k and keep $2k IMHO means she has not been caught or identified , so maybe the question that needs to be put first ,Is will she come forward? :twisted:

[modman]

First of all can she afford to bring ray finklestein out of retirement
That man could prove chewbacca isn't a wookie
Ultimately money or wealth or stature can affect most legal decisions
Why isn't the reinhart(sp) proceedings being publicized??
How many chances does Liam jurrah get before time??
Why is it illegal to give Kyle sandilands a flogging??
Dc

[BMKal]

First of all can she afford to bring ray finklestein out of retirement
That man could prove chewbacca isn't a wookie
Ultimately money or wealth or stature can affect most legal decisions
Why isn't the reinhart(sp) proceedings being publicized??
How many chances does Liam jurrah get before time??Why is it illegal to give Kyle sandilands a flogging??Dc

When did they bring this law in ?????? :twisted:

[MLD]

I'll give you my Barrister's opinion:

Collect payment for your services before she goes into the dock. Tough to get money out of your client when he/she is sitting in the cell waiting for transport.

To throw a cat among the pigeons, argue necessity. It won't necessarily fly but you can throw it.

MLD

[wrinklearthur]

Why is it illegal to give Kyle sandilands a flogging??
Dc

I had to Google Kyle Sandilands, and I'm none the wiser for it . :p

That lady with the two grand isn't guilty, cause she is a kind person that gave it to charity .

[isuzurover]

I'll give you my Barrister's opinion:

Collect payment for your services before she goes into the dock. Tough to get money out of your client when he/she is sitting in the cell waiting for transport.

To throw a cat among the pigeons, argue necessity. It won't necessarily fly but you can throw it.

MLD

By necessity you mean - she needed the money?

Surely a similar argument is to argue that without the duress no crime would have been committed at all...?

[Disco Muppet]

By necessity you mean - she needed the money?

Surely a similar argument is to argue that without the duress no crime would have been committed at all...?

Necessity and Duress are on the same page.
Duress is a crime done under some form of threat to the accused.
Necessity is quite similar, with the crime done by reason of some extraordinary emergency or circumstance.
I.E Man says "Go grab that lady's handbag or I'll cut your kid" is a crime done under duress.
Example for Necessity given in my textbook is two men accused of murder of a third man, who they killed and then ate whilst in a life-boat for 16 weeks, to avoid starvation.

The question was not on of legal proceedings, we were just asked to look at if she would still be able to argue duress.

[munro]

Who said she didn't give the $3k to the con? What proof or evidence is there that she kept any of the money?:twisted:

[THE BOOGER]

Yep he is a convicted crim so his evidence needs to be corroborated:)

[Mick_Marsh]

Not sure if it is of any relevance but, when robbing the servo, did she take $3,000 or whatever money she could which happened to be $3,000?
I don't hear of many robberies in which the offender asks "Can I have $1,000 please?" and then spends time to count it.
I know nothing legally but to me this sounds like duress no matter how much she took.

[dullbird]

i dont think there is any question of the Duress Mick....however if she kept money it is still not hers to spend no matter which way you look at it. So I reckon she would not be charge with the robbery but she would be charged after the fact if she spent it or did something with it other than handing it in to the authorities.


I agree with the end of your comments though.
I still think she could claim it was under duress, because the crime was the result of the threat, a crime that would not have taken place had a threat not been present.

Still it makes you wonder, how many people get off drug trafficking charges when you hear constantly they were threatened to do it.
Though I appreciate that might be different rules for different countries ect....but if you think about not a dissimilar situation as you hear of those people excepting holidays and money etc for doing it.

[Michael2]

Let's examine the case by way of a parallel :

Can a conscript (enlisted under duress) become a war criminal?