Whelan v National City Bank Ltd ; Attorney General v Whelan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1934 |
| Date | 20 December 1934 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State) |
Crime admitted - Crime alleged to have been committed under threats from armed thief - Defence of duress per minas - Whether amounting to a justification - Limits of such defence.
Threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal. But the application of this general rule must be subject to certain limitations, ex. gr., the rule would not apply to the commission of murder, which is a crime so heinous that the strongest duress would not be any justification. But the rule would apply to the crime of receiving stolen goods. And where the excuse of duress is applicable it must be clearly shown that the overpowering of the will was operative at the time the crime was actually committed, and if there be reasonable opportunity for the will to reassert itself no justification can be found in antecedent threats. So held by the Court of Criminal Appeal. P. W. was charged with having received a sum of money, the property of a certain bank, knowing the same to have been stolen. He admitted the crime, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunne v DPP
...Court of Criminal Appeal on duress 101 In its decision on the appeal, the Court referred to the decision in Attorney General v. Whelan [1934] I.R. 518, in which, in the course of a discussion about the general availability of duress as a defence the Court of Criminal Appeal had said: ?The a......
-
DPP v Gleeson
...that defence was pleaded, and he further stated that there had been no reported case on the matter in then recent years; AG v Whelan [1934] IR 518. Since then, the authorities, and resulting academic commentary, have burgeoned. Many of the relevant decisions and texts have been argued on th......
-
R v Hasan (Aytach)
...Nor is it now regarded as justifying the conduct of the defendant, as has in the past been suggested: Attorney-General v Whelan [1934] IR 518, 526; Glanville Williams, Criminal Law, The General Part (2nd ed, 1961), p 755. Duress is now properly to be regarded as a defence which, if establis......
-
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch
...expressions used it would not be appropriate to treat what was said as being a comprehensive statement of principle. 29 A.-G. v. Whelan [1934] I.R. 518 there was a charge of receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen. A special question was left to the jury as follows: — "In receivin......
-
Necessity as a Defence to Murder: An Anglo-Canadian Perspective
...primarily the values thatcompeting rights to life promote and it provides reasons to act to secure94 See Attorney-General vWhelan [1934] IR 518, Irish CCA, where Murnaghan J stated thatduress is a defence because ‘… threats of immediate death or serious personal violenceso great as to overb......
-
The Paradox of Disallowing Duress as a Defence to Murder
...653. This, however, was overruled by R v Howe [1987] 1 AC 417. In Ireland, duress remains a common law defence. Attorney-General v Whelan [1934] IR 518 confirmed that duress is not available as a defence to the crime of murder. Ireland considered the defences of duress and necessity in the......
-
CONSIDERATIONS OF TIME AND SPACE IN DURESS
...Criminal Law of Queensland (J Jerrard, B Butler & M Shanahan eds, Butterworths, 10th Ed, 1997), pp 110—111. 22 Attorney-General v Whelan [1934] IR 518 at 526 per Murnaghan J. See further, P Charleton, P McDermott & M Bolger, Criminal Law (Butterworths, 1999) pp 1087—1088. 23 Thomson v H M A......
-
The Contours of the Right to Self-Defence: Is the Requirement of Imminence Merely a Translator for the Concept of Necessity?
...Dressler, above n. 44 at 1337.56 E. Caird, The Critical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant, vol. 2 (James Maclehose & Sons:Glasgow, 1889) 319.57 [1934] IR 518 at 524.58 Blackstone, Commentaries IV 30, cited in Smith and Hogan, above n. 21 at 311.59 (1969) 53 Cr App R 569.60 [1975] AC 653.61 (1976)......