What presumption was established by the SC in DPP v. Walsh and Conneely regarding women committing crimes?

The case of DPP v. Walsh and Conneely addressed the presumption surrounding women's conduct in relation to their husbands and criminal liability. The court established that women were often seen as acting under the duress of their husbands when committing crimes. This presumption stemmed from historical views of gender roles, where women were perceived as subordinate and heavily influenced by their husbands.

This ruling recognized that societal and legal attitudes towards women's autonomy in criminal acts were rooted in traditional norms about marriage and gender. By affirming that women might act under the direct or indirect influence of their spouses, the court acknowledged the complexities surrounding women's agency in criminal behavior, particularly in the context of domestic situations.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately reflect the court's findings. The presumption of independence (first choice) contradicts the notion of duress established by the court. The suggestion that women were legally incapable of committing crimes in front of their husbands misrepresents the judgment and fails to acknowledge the influence aspect. Lastly, the assertion that husbands were liable for crimes committed by their wives oversimplifies the legal relationship and misrepresents the court's emphasis on the presumption of duress rather than liability. Thus, the nuanced understanding of women's agency in the context