Necessity Defence Debates
π What Is the Defence of Necessity?
The necessity defence argues that a person had no reasonable alternative but to break the law to avoid serious harm (to themselves or others).
It's controversial and rarely accepted.
Often confused or compared with:
Duress (pressure by threats from others)
Self-defence (force to protect oneself)
English courts have been reluctant to formally accept necessity, especially in serious crimes like murder.
βοΈ Key Cases on the Defence of Necessity
Here are more than five key cases, with detailed explanations of the facts, legal issue, outcome, and why each matters.
1. R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
π Facts:
Two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
They argued necessity, claiming they would otherwise starve to death.
βοΈ Held:
The court rejected the defence of necessity for murder.
Convicted of murder (though sentence was later commuted).
π Significance:
Leading authority: necessity is no defence to murder.
Set a strict moral limit on when necessity can apply.
Still cited today in debates about the defenceβs boundaries.
2. Re A (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000] EWCA Civ 254
π Facts:
Conjoined twins. Doctors wanted to operate, knowing one twin would die, but parents refused.
The operation was necessary to save at least one child.
βοΈ Held:
Court of Appeal allowed the operation, applying a version of the necessity defence.
It was framed as avoiding a greater harm, with doctors acting to save life, not cause death.
π Significance:
Exception to Dudley and Stephens: necessity allowed in extreme medical cases.
Clarified that intent and moral purpose matter.
Case often used in bioethics and medical law.
3. R v. Quayle & Others [2005] EWCA Crim 1415
π Facts:
Several defendants grew or used cannabis for pain relief (e.g. in terminal illness).
Argued necessity because it was for medical reasons.
βοΈ Held:
Court rejected the necessity defence.
Stated that personal medical choices do not override criminal law on drug control.
π Significance:
Reaffirmed that necessity does not apply just because harm is reduced.
Parliament must decide these exceptions, not courts.
4. R v. Shayler [2001] EWCA Crim 1977
π Facts:
A former MI5 officer leaked classified documents, claiming it was necessary to protect the public.
βοΈ Held:
Court rejected his necessity defence.
National security was important, but proper legal channels existed.
π Significance:
Shows that "greater good" arguments are not enough.
Necessity only applies where there is no lawful alternative.
5. Southwark LBC v. Williams [1971] Ch 734
π Facts:
Homeless family broke into a vacant house.
Argued necessity to avoid sleeping on the street.
βοΈ Held:
Court rejected necessity.
Lord Denning warned that accepting such arguments could legalise anarchy.
π Significance:
Courts refuse to allow necessity to justify breaking property laws.
Reinforces idea that moral pressure β legal defence.
6. R v. Martin (Colin) [1989] 1 All ER 652
π Facts:
A man drove his wife, who was suicidal, to work while disqualified.
He claimed he had to do it to prevent her suicide.
βοΈ Held:
Court accepted the defence of duress of circumstances, closely related to necessity.
Recognised his belief in immediate danger as relevant.
π Significance:
Opens the door for necessity-type arguments in lesser offences.
Shows the blurred line between duress and necessity.
7. R v. Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607
π Facts:
Defendant found with an illegal firearm. Claimed he took it to prevent someone else from using it.
Held it overnight before handing it in.
βοΈ Held:
Court accepted that necessity could be raised as a defence in firearms possession.
But said he failed to act fast enough in handing it over.
π Significance:
A rare recognition of necessity in a criminal case.
Shows the defence is possible, but limited by how the defendant behaves after the event.
π§ Key Principles of Necessity Defence
| Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Imminent threat | Harm must be immediate and serious. |
| No lawful alternative | The defendant must have no other option. |
| Proportional response | The crime committed must be the least harmful option. |
| Limited to minor offences | Generally not allowed in serious crimes (e.g. murder). |
π Summary Table
| Case | Accepted? | Key Principle or Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) | β | Necessity not a defence to murder |
| Re A (2000) | β | Exception for life-saving medical necessity |
| R v. Quayle (2005) | β | Medical need doesn't justify breaking drug laws |
| R v. Shayler (2001) | β | Public interest isn't enough if legal channels exist |
| Southwark v. Williams (1971) | β | Poverty doesnβt justify trespass |
| R v. Martin (1989) | β (duress) | Duress of circumstances allowed in minor offence |
| R v. Pommell (1995) | β | Necessity possible in weapons offences with caution |
β Final Takeaways:
Necessity is not a general defence β it's only recognised in very narrow, exceptional cases.
Courts are cautious: they donβt want to encourage people to choose which laws to follow.
RELATED Blog
0 comments