Before going further, a legal refinement must be added, for it exposes the futility of making an inquiry (as I am about to embark on) as to whether an accused had no safe avenue of escape divorced from finding a threat existed, its nature and whether the accused reasonably believed it would be carried out: … The requirement of a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened is linked with the requirement that the accused have no safe avenue of escape … … By reading in the requirements of safe avenue of escape and close temporal connection, the purely subjective standard becomes an evaluation based on a modified objective standard. These two elements, in conjunction with the belief that the threat will be carried out, must be analyzed as a whole: the accused cannot reasonably believe that the threat would be carried out if there was a safe avenue of escape and no close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened. (R v. Ryan, supra at para. 51)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.