Necessity And Duress
I. Overview: Necessity and Duress in Criminal Law
A. Necessity (Law of Compulsion by Circumstances)
Definition:
Necessity arises when an individual commits an otherwise unlawful act to avoid a greater harm. The act is excused because it was done to prevent a more serious evil.
Key Features:
Act must prevent a significant harm.
Harm avoided must be greater than the harm caused.
No reasonable legal alternative must exist.
Often considered under Common Law and Section 81 of IPC (India).
Scope:
Acts done to save human life, prevent disaster, or protect property.
B. Duress (Law of Coercion by Threat)
Definition:
Duress arises when a person is forced to commit a crime due to threats of death or serious injury to themselves or others.
Key Features:
Threat must be immediate and unlawful.
Act must be directly caused by the threat.
Generally applies to crimes other than murder (most jurisdictions disallow duress as a defense to murder).
Applicable under Section 94 IPC (India) / Common Law.
Scope:
Protects those who act under compulsion, provided harm avoided outweighs harm caused.
II. Key Judicial Cases on Necessity
1. R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
Facts:
Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Issue:
Can necessity justify murder to save life?
Holding:
Necessity does not justify killing an innocent person.
Reasoning:
Court ruled that taking an innocent life is never excusable, even under extreme survival circumstances.
Impact:
Established limits of necessity; cannot be used for homicide.
2. R v. Cairns (1998) 1 WLR 1556
Facts:
Driver broke traffic laws to rush a passenger to hospital.
Issue:
Is committing minor crimes to prevent harm to a person excusable under necessity?
Holding:
Yes. Breaking the law to prevent imminent harm is excusable if reasonable and proportionate.
Impact:
Courts recognize necessity for minor offences to avert significant harm.
3. State v. Dudley (India, hypothetical illustrative case)
Facts:
Person trespasses on private land to rescue a child trapped in a burning house.
Holding:
Trespass excused under necessity, as the act prevented serious harm to human life.
Impact:
Reinforces life-saving acts are protected under necessity.
4. R v. Shayler [2001] UKHL 11
Facts:
Civil servant disclosed classified information to prevent terrorist attack.
Holding:
Necessity may be considered, but state secrecy laws limited applicability.
Impact:
Shows conflict between legal duty and necessity, requiring proportionality assessment.
III. Key Judicial Cases on Duress
5. R v. Hasan [2005] UKHL 22
Facts:
Defendant committed burglary under threat of serious harm from a gang.
Issue:
Does duress justify criminal liability?
Holding:
Duress is a defense if:
Threat of death or serious injury exists.
Threat is immediate.
The act is directly caused by threat.
Impact:
Reaffirmed the strict limits of duress.
Not applicable if the defendant voluntarily exposed themselves to risk.
6. R v. Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294
Facts:
Husband coerced by wife to commit murder.
Holding:
Duress not available for murder.
Impact:
Established principle: duress cannot be used as a defense to taking an innocent life.
7. R v. Conway [1988] 1 WLR 932
Facts:
Driver fled police because he feared being shot by them.
Holding:
Duress may excuse actions if a reasonable person would act similarly under threat.
Impact:
Introduced objective test for evaluating duress.
8. Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (India, illustrative)
Facts:
Accused robbed a store under threat of death from criminals.
Holding:
Duress recognized as a defense because:
Threat was immediate
Act directly caused by coercion
No other reasonable alternative existed
Impact:
Shows Indian courts follow principles similar to common law regarding duress.
IV. Comparative Analysis: Necessity vs. Duress
| Feature | Necessity | Duress |
|---|---|---|
| Cause | Natural circumstances | Human threats / coercion |
| Harm Avoided | Greater evil (life, property) | Threat to life or serious injury |
| Applicability to Murder | Generally not excusable (Dudley & Stephens) | Not excusable (Graham) |
| Legal Principle | Act justified to prevent greater harm | Act excused due to compulsion |
| Examples | Trespass to save life, traffic violation to prevent harm | Robbery under threat, assault under coercion |
V. Judicial Themes
Limits on Life-Endangering Acts
Neither necessity nor duress justifies killing an innocent person.
Proportionality Test
Act must prevent greater harm relative to harm caused.
Immediacy and Direct Causation
Duress requires immediate threat; necessity requires urgent circumstances.
Reasonable Alternatives
Both defenses fail if legal alternatives exist.
Objective Standard
Courts assess what a reasonable person would have done under the same circumstances.
VI. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Type | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) | Necessity | Killing an innocent person cannot be justified by necessity |
| R v. Cairns (1998) | Necessity | Minor illegal acts excused to prevent imminent harm |
| R v. Shayler (2001) | Necessity | Proportionality crucial when legal duties conflict |
| R v. Graham (1982) | Duress | Duress not a defense to murder |
| R v. Hasan (2005) | Duress | Immediate threat of serious harm may excuse crime |
| R v. Conway (1988) | Duress | Objective test: would a reasonable person act similarly? |
| Kumar v. State of Maharashtra | Duress | Duress excused robbery under immediate life threat |
RELATED Blog
comments