Thread: Any legal-eagles out there?

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

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

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...

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

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 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.

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.

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

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