Lecture notes
Defence of Necessity
- Module
- Criminal Law
- Institution
- The University Of Essex (UoE)
lecture notes on the defence of necessity
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Criminal law – week 19 – defences: necessity and public/private defencePre-recorded lecture 1: Necessity
Necessity relates to the choice between two evils – it can be an excuse or a justification – breach and
the harm balance
- Necessity has not been fully defined, its an enigma, uncertain and is unresolved
- Criminal law needs this defence
- No other defence available, clear liability would be inappropriate
- Existence denied (reluctance) yet deployed
- Defence courts wish to encourage
- Considered to apply to medical cases
- Other
Necessity applied
- Operates on the balance of evils – if D’s evil (offence) is less serious than the evil avoided by
committing it, then D entitled to the defence
- Problem? Defining necessity in greater detail – likely risk safety net utility sacrificed
- Conversely – if only test balance of evils – lead the defence to become impossibly wide?
Courts
- Pragmatic approach: resist definition and restriction but apply defence reluctantly and
always with the defence’s potential, intermediate dangers in mind
- London Borough of South ward v Williams 1971 – potential application of necessity and
dangers illustrated
o ‘if hunger were once allowed to be an excuse for stealing, it would open a door
through which all kinds of lawlessness and disorder would pass…if homelessness
were once admitted as a defence to trespass, no one’s house would be safe.
Necessity would open a door which no man could shut…the reason for such
circumstances is clear – necessity can very easily simply become a mask for anarchy’
Cases where necessity was applied
- Problems and judicial reluctance necessity applied number of exceptional cases
- Pipe v BPP 2012 – speeding case, necessity allowed on appeal
- Leigh v Gladstone 1909 – justify force feeding of prisoners
- Bourne 1939 – justify procurement of abortion to save mother – implicit surgeons choice
determined by necessity
- Gillick v West Norfork and Wisbeh A.H.A 1985
o Mothers of five girls challenged lawfulness of Department of Health advice to area
health authorities enabled Dr’s giving confidential
o HL – Dr faced a choice, giving confidential advice which was likely to lead to offence
on one hand and risk unwanted pregnancy with psychological suffering for young
women on the other
o Dr’s advice was guided by best interest of young women – no criminal intent arose,
and no offence was committed
o Necessity not explicitly recognised but applied
- F v West Berkshire Authority 1989
o V, 36-year-old patient in psychiatric hospital
, o Formed a sexual relationship
o Medical advice found be disastrous if V became pregnant
o However, problems ensuring the use of ordinary contraception
o V mother applied for court order for sterilisation (w/out V’s consent as V unable)
o Declaration sought that such an order be unlawful
o Declaration granted, appealed, and dismissed by both CA and HL
o Held, Doctors actions protected by necessity
R v Quayle (2006)
o Reluctance to grant necessity
o D had both legs amputated, argued that he needed to smoke cannabis to avoid pain
from medical condition
o Medical evidence – cannabis effective pain relief
o Conviction for possession, cultivation, production, and importation of cannabis
o Appealed based on necessity, and this was dismissed
Can necessity be a defence to murder?
Dudley and Stephens 1884 – cabin boy case
- Held necessity not a defence to murder
- D shipwrecked, after several days, decided to murder V (the cabin boy) and eat him
- Rescued 4 days later and charged with murder
- Jury, special verdict, findings of fact that Ds would have died if they had not eaten V and V
would have certainly died
- High court – guilty of murder – necessity not a defence
- D chose to kill V, recognising the defence would have led to divorce of law from morality
- Necessity not a defence to murder, attempted murder, or treason
- Restriction relaxed in medical cases Re A
Re A (conjoined twins) 2000
- J and M conjoined twins, separate vital organs, medical evidence established that J was
sustaining Ms life through common artery
- Left conjoined, both die
- If separated J had a potential for life but M would die
- Parents refused operation on religious ground
- Doctors applied for declaration that separation (killing M) would not be unlawful
- Declaration granted, appealed, Ca dismissed appeal
- LJ Brooke, basing decision on necessity, set out 3 requirements for the defence
o 1) act is needed to avoid inevitable and irrespirable evil
o 2) no more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the purpose to be
achieved
o 3) the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided
Public/private defences (self-defence)
Scope, use of reasonable force
- 1) self defence
- 2) defence of another
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller charlie-annmarron. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
57413 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now