A)Linda is guilty of an offence contrary to the Perjury Act 19111.It has been held that for duress motive is generally irrelevant to perjury (Attorney-General's Reference)2 .It was held though in the case of Hudson and Taylor3 duress will be a defence where "the will of the accused has been overborne by threats of death or serious personal injury so that the commission of the alleged offence was no longer the voluntary act of the accused."4.Due to this reasoning (see K (1984)5 she has a good chance of educed or extinguished based on her mitigating circumstances.
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 fam ...