Necessity

Pipe v DPP

Duress of circumstances may allow a necessity to prevail

Johnson v Phillips

It is permissible for a police constable to direct people to break traffic regulations if that is necessary and reasonable to protect life or property. Obeying such a direction will not infringe the law

Southwark LBC v Williams

Lord Denning found that opening necessity as a defence for trespass would open too broad a door for unlawful and disorderly behaviour

Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation)

Necessity is available where i) the defendant damages or steals another's property in the public interest; ii) D damages their own property or interferes with another's property in order to protect his or her own person or properyt; iii) actions are taken for the benefit of another person where that person is unable to consent

Glazebrooks on necessity

Notes that the principle of necessity undoubtedly informs the court's reasoning, even where they cannot rely on it explicitly. He suggests that there is a principle of statutory interpretation which requires clear and unambiguous language for the statute to apply where in all probability, more harm will be caused by complying with the law than by contravening it

Necessity

Refers to a defence that the defendant did 'the lesser of two evils' - that D was in a situation in which whatever he or she did would result in harm being caused, and D chose the course of action which would cause the least harm

Herring on Re A

Suggests that the criteria laid down in Brooke LJ's speech conflict with the earlier decision in Dudley and Stephens, which the Court of Appeal agreed in Re A was correctly decided. The decision is therefore exceptional, and should therefore be extended only by analogy and the doctrine of necessity should be developed on a case by case basis

Herring on Glazebrooks

Suggests the proposed principle of statutory interpretationnn is simply a broad reading of the principle that statute should be interpreted in such a way to give effect to the purpose of the statute

Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice

The Court of Appeal denied the existence of a general defence of necessity, in relation to euthanasia

Re A (Children) (Conjoined twins: Surgical separation)

The Court of Appeal was able to find a very exceptional defence of necessity to murder on the facts of the case. M and J were conjoined at the abdomen. M was incapable of surviving without J, but J would be able to survive without M. Without separation, both would die.

R v Howe

The House of Lords interpreted Dudley and Stephens as laying out the rule that necessity is not a defence to murder

R v Quayle

There is no general defence of necessity - the claim 'I broke the law but there would have been even worse consequences had I obeyed' will not itself lead to acquittal

Dudley and Stephens

Three men and a boy were shipwrecked in an open boat with no food and water; the men killed the boy who was very il. They ate him, and managed to survive until they were rescued. The defence of necessity failed, and they were each convicted of murder and sentenced to death (though the sentences were commuted)

St George's Healthcare NHS Trust

Where the victim is competent and able to give consent and refuses to do so, ti is unlawful to provide treatment to that patient, even if to do so would be in their best interests