Duress and Criminal Organisations
| Published date | 01 January 1979 |
| Author | Peter J. Rowe |
| Date | 01 January 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1979.tb01517.x |
102
THE
MODERN LAW REVIEW
[Vol.
42
sometimes be lower than before this is surely acceptable: the prob-
lems posed by inflation must be faced and dealt with directly.20
Lord Diplock stated that
“
no other practical basis of calculation
has been suggested that is capable of dealing with
so
conjectural a
factor
(as
inflation) with greater precision.” But is
this
strictly
so?
22
A
majority of the Pearson Commission favour the introduc-
tion of index-linked periodic payments to compensate for future
pecuniary loss caused by death or serious injury.28 Moreover many
of the other methods suggested for making explicit allowance for
inflation
(e.g.
making an express allowance in the multiplicand or
adopting new multipliers which would make a more realistic allow-
ance for inflation and individual tax rates25) would better ensure
that more dependlants receive full compensation
for
lost dependency.
PHILIP
DAVIBS.
PETER
RUSSELL.
DURIISS
AND
CRIMINAL
ORGANISATIONS
THE
interesting issues
of
whether duress
as
a
defence is excluded
whero
an
accused has joined
a
criminal organisation and the effect
of
his trying
to
leave it were dealt with by the Northern Ireland
Court
of
Criminal Appeal
in
R.
v.
Fitzpatrick
and
also
by
the Law
Commission in its recent report on
Defences
of
General Application.’
Fitzpatrick, who had with him
a
loaded revolver went with
an
accomplice to rob the deceased at
his
office. During the course
of
the robbery he shot the deceased. He was charged,
inter
alia,
with murder and robbery, tried by a judge alone and convicted. He
had pleaded duress arising from the following circumstances. He was
a member
of
the Official I.R.A.. having joined at the age
of
19
and had
received regular
training
in the
use
of
firearms. Six months after
having been inducted into the
I.R.A.
he wished to leave but, according
20
In
Jefford
v.
Gee
the Court
of
Appeal had also laid down that interest should
be awarded on damagcs for pain, suffcring atid
loss
of
amenities. The
Court
of
Appeal in the present case
([1977]
Q.B.
at
p.
921)
disagreed. In the Lords Lord
Diplock expressly left open the point.
See
Law Commission Report
Nos.
56
and
88
and Working Paper
No.
65
as well
as
the Pearson Report (paras.
744-748).
The
point has recently been discussed in
Hodgson
v.
G.E.C.
[I9781
2
Lloyd’s Rep.
210
(Latey
J.)
and
in
Pickerr
v.
British
Rall
Engineering
Lid.,
supra,
where the
Houso
of
Lords firmly re-asserted that lnterost is
to
be added
to
such awards
of
general damages.
21
[1978] 2
All
E.R. at
p.
611.
22 Lord Dcnning M.11. and Browne L.J. expressed concern about the whole basis
of
the assessment
of
darnages in accident cases in
Lim
Poh
Choo
v.
Camden and
Islington
A.H.A.,
supra.
28
Paras.
555-611.
(Cj.
mlnority opinion, paras.
615-630).
21
See Prevett.
(1972)
35
M.L.R.
140.
257.
25
The majority
of
the Pearson Commission who advocated periodic payments also
proposed
a
more realistic set
of
multipliers
for
those cases not covered by periodic
payments: see paras.
659-708
(cj. the mlnority opinion, paras.
709-725).
1
Unreported Transcript hdgment
of
Lord Lowry
C.J.,
October
8, 1976.
a
Law Commisslon Report No.
83 (1977).
To continue reading
Request your trial