Thread: Any legal-eagles out there?

Originally Posted by 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

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...?

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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.

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

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

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.

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.