Martin6 which concerned the defence of necessity to driving while disqualified and the defendant was allowed to use the defence in his appeal
(c) This was intentional homicide amounting to murder and necessity is not a defence to murder. See Queen v Dudley and Stephens7However see also the decision taken in the case of Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)8 where the parents of six week old Siamese twins, Mary and Jody,(M and J) appealed against a court order granting the NHS the authority to perform an optional surgical separation .9 where murder/intentional killing of the Siamese twin was justified to save one life.
(e) This is a case of Duress which is a general defence to a many crimes but not to Murder. However it can be argued that he did not know the reason he was being asked to park the van outside the Mission. The question will be forseeability then i.e. whether he saw through or could reasonable have seen through their designs in parking the van outside. The relevant authorities here are Kray 11,Lynch v DPP for NI 12 and Howe13.
This is a case of assault/battery and the thin Skull rule under the famous case of R v. Blaue. Fred cannot plead he did not know about Amrit's pre-existing condition and thus will be guilty of manslaughter NOT murder as it is not possible to show intentional killing here.
This was something in the nature of unlawful act manslaughter.(See Andrews v DPP (1973) AC 576 at 581 and Fenton (1830) 1 Lew CC 179).
The theft of 5000 pounds from Amrit's pockets is an offence under the Theft Act 1968 as he is well aware that the money is the stolen proceeds of illicit drug dealing.
When Fred persuades an elderly to write a the facts are insufficient to judge whether there has actually been some sort of deception here but see below for a case under the Fraud Act 2006.
Fred has remained silent about obtaining more than his due salary.In this regard see offences under the Theft Act 1968 and 1978 like Obtaining property by deception (Theft Act 1968, section 15), or in the case of the extra salary obtaining a money transfer by deception (Theft Act 1968, section 15A) or obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (Theft Act 1968, section 16) which are now covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and would primarily fit under the Fraud Act 2006.
Possible liability for Fred in both scenarios under the Fraud Act 2006.
Section 2 Fraud by false representation" is as a case where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading.
Fraud by failing to disclose information" under Section 3 of the Act in the case of the extra salary.
"Fraud by abuse of position" under Section 4 of the Act in case of the abuse of the elderly man's money in his position of his caretaker.