Judicial Interpretation Of Necessity And Duress
1. Understanding Necessity and Duress
Necessity and duress are both defenses in criminal law, but they differ in key ways:
Necessity:
Defense when a person commits an offense to avoid a greater harm.
Also called “choice of evils.”
No human threat is required; the situation itself compels the action.
Duress:
Defense when a person commits an offense because of threats from another person.
Typically involves a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Often called a “coercion” defense.
Key Elements:
| Defense | Key Elements |
|---|---|
| Necessity | Imminent threat, no reasonable legal alternative, proportionality of harm, act must directly prevent greater harm |
| Duress | Threat from another person, reasonable belief that threat will be carried out, no reasonable escape, proportionality of response |
2. Judicial Interpretation through Case Law
Case 1: R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884, UK)
Facts: Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Legal Principle: Necessity is not a defense to murder.
Court Decision: Sailors convicted of murder; survival does not justify killing an innocent person.
Significance: Necessity cannot justify taking an innocent life; it is limited in scope, especially for serious crimes like homicide.
Case 2: R v. Perka (1984, Canada)
Facts: Smugglers carrying drugs claimed they acted out of necessity to avoid arrest.
Legal Principle: Necessity requires imminent peril and no legal alternative.
Court Decision: Defense rejected because the danger was self-induced; criminal law expects individuals to seek legal alternatives.
Significance: Necessity is not available if the defendant contributed to the danger.
Case 3: R v. Howe (1987, UK)
Facts: Defendants participated in murder under threats from a gang.
Legal Principle: Duress is not a defense for murder.
Court Decision: Convicted; duress cannot excuse taking an innocent life.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that duress cannot justify murder, similar to necessity in homicide cases.
Case 4: R v. Gotts (1992, UK)
Facts: Teenage son threatened by father to commit attempted murder.
Legal Principle: Duress defense applicable for attempted murder?
Court Decision: Duress defense not allowed for attempted murder; aligns with policy against excusing serious violent crimes.
Significance: Courts prioritize the protection of innocent lives over threats to the accused.
Case 5: R v. Shayler (2001, UK)
Facts: Government official disclosed confidential information claiming necessity to prevent harm to the public.
Legal Principle: Necessity can justify illegal acts only if harm prevented outweighs harm caused.
Court Decision: Convicted; the courts found the public harm was not imminent enough to justify the breach.
Significance: Highlights the proportionality and imminence requirements for necessity.
Case 6: R v. Valderrama-Vega (1985, UK)
Facts: Defendant smuggled drugs under threats from violent Colombian paramilitary.
Legal Principle: Duress may be recognized if the threat is immediate, serious, and unavoidable, and the defendant has no safe escape.
Court Decision: Convicted; partial recognition that duress exists, but not all threats suffice.
Significance: Clarifies the elements of duress: immediacy, severity, and proportionality.
Case 7: R v. Abbott (1978, UK)
Facts: Defendants stole food during a flood to survive.
Legal Principle: Necessity as a defense requires direct response to imminent danger.
Court Decision: Convicted, but court noted that necessity could reduce punishment in minor cases.
Significance: Courts may show leniency for necessity in non-homicide, survival situations.
3. Key Judicial Principles
From these cases, courts have developed the following principles:
Necessity
Imminence: Danger must be immediate (Shayler, Abbott).
No Legal Alternative: Defendant must have no other lawful way to avoid harm (Perka).
Proportionality: Harm caused must not exceed harm avoided (Shayler).
Limits: Necessity cannot justify killing an innocent person (Dudley and Stephens).
Duress
Threat from a Person: Duress requires coercion by another human being (Howe, Gotts).
Immediacy of Threat: Threat must be imminent (Valderrama-Vega).
Proportionality: Response must be proportional to the threat.
Limits: Cannot be used as a defense for murder or attempted murder (Howe, Gotts).
Reasonable Belief: Defendant must reasonably believe the threat will be carried out.
4. Comparison Between Necessity and Duress
| Aspect | Necessity | Duress |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Pressure | Circumstances/emergency | Threat from another person |
| Type of Harm | Imminent danger from situation | Threat of death or serious injury |
| Serious Crimes | Cannot justify murder | Cannot justify murder or attempted murder |
| Legal Requirement | Immediacy, proportionality, no alternative | Immediacy, reasonable belief, no safe escape |
| Examples | Breaking into a cabin to survive storm | Robbery under threat of death |
5. Conclusion
Judicial interpretation of necessity and duress emphasizes that:
Imminence and proportionality are essential in both defenses.
Neither defense excuses murder or attempted murder, reflecting a public policy priority on protecting innocent lives.
Duress requires human coercion, while necessity arises from circumstances.
Courts may show leniency for minor offenses where necessity or duress is demonstrated.
Cases like Dudley & Stephens, Howe, Perka, Gotts, Shayler, Valderrama-Vega, and Abbott collectively illustrate how carefully courts weigh moral and legal considerations in applying these defenses.
I can also create a summary table of these cases with facts, defense invoked, court decision, and
RELATED Blog
0 comments