Necessity

Question 1

What case happened in 2000?

Answer 1

Re A

Question 2

What happened in the case of Re A (2000)?

Answer 2

An operation was required to separate two conjoined twins, however the weaker twin would die. Due to religious beliefs, the parents would not consent to the operation and a declaration was sought to confirm the lawfulness of the operation.

Question 3

What was the outcome of Re A (2000)?

Answer 3

The operation was deemed lawful and it was said the defence of necessity would be available to them if charged with murder of the weaker twin

Question 4

What is the point of law of Re A (2000)?

Answer 4

That necessity and duress are two separate defences and necessity involves ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’

Question 5

What established choosing the lesser of two evils is the principle of the defence of necessity?

Answer 5

Re A (2000)

Question 6

What year was the case of Re A?

Answer 6

2000

Question 7

When was the defence of necessity first recognised?

Answer 7

The 1980’s

Question 8

What happened in the 1980’s?

Answer 8

The defence of necessity was recognised

The defence of circumstances began to emerge

Question 9

In what cases was the defence of necessity not accepted?

Answer 9

Dudley and Stephens (1884)

Southwark London borough council v Williams (1970)

Question 10

What happened in the case of Dudley and Stephens (1884)?

Answer 10

They ate a cabin boy, who was already near death, in order to survive

Question 11

What was the outcome of Dudley and Stephens (1884)?

Answer 11

The plea of necessity to a murder charge was rejected

Question 12

What case happened in 1885?

Answer 12

Dudley and Stephens

Question 13

In what year was the case of Dudley and Stephens?

Answer 13

1884

Question 14

What is the point of law in the case of Dudley and Stephens (1884)?

Answer 14

That the defence of necessity cannot be used for a murder charge

Question 15

What case happened in 1971?

Answer 15

Southwark London borough council v Williams

Question 16

In what year did the case of Southwark London borough council v Williams happen?

Answer 16

1971

Question 17

What did Lord Denning say in the case of Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

Answer 17

‘Necessity would open a door that no man could open’

Question 18

What is meant by ‘necessity would open a door that no man could shut’?

Answer 18

The it is necessary the defence has a limited scope otherwise cases would set precedent which would have to be followed in similar cases meaning many other laws could be broken.

Question 19

What happened in the case of Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

Answer 19

Through no fault of their own a family were in dire need of housing accommodation and moved into empty houses owned by the council. The council went to court to have them evicted.

Question 20

What was the outcome of Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

Answer 20

The court said despite the families circumstances the defence of necessity didn’t apply and they were evicted, then Lord Denning said “if homelessness were once admitted as a defence admitted to trespass, no ones house would be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut”

Question 21

Who said ‘necessity would open a door which no man could shut’?

Answer 21

Lord Denning

Question 22

Why did the courts come to the ruling they did in Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

Answer 22

Because otherwise any homeless person would be able to live in someone else’s property as Southwark London borough council v Williams would have set precedent.

Question 23

Why is it important the defence has a limited scope?

Answer 23

Because otherwise other laws could be broken because it was deemed ‘necessary’. It having a limited scope upholds public policy and keeps the public safe.

Question 24

What is the ongoing debate of the defence of necessity?

Answer 24

If it exists or not

Question 25

What did Lord Goff say in R v Richards (1986)?

Answer 25

There was no doubt the defence existed even though it's scope was not well established

Question 26

What case happened in 1986?

Answer 26

R v Richards

Question 27

In what year was the case of R v Richards?

Answer 27

1986

Question 28

What happened in the case of R v Richard (1986)?

Answer 28

Lord Goff said 'there is no doubt the defence of necessity exists even thought it's scope is not well established'

Question 29

What is an example of the necessity being practiced?

Answer 29

Emergency services being exempted from observing the speed limit

Question 30

When did the defence of circumstances begin to emerge?

Answer 30

The 1980's

Question 31

What consequences did the duress of circumstances have upon the defence of necessity?

Answer 31

Many began to believe that the duress of circumstances was simply necessity in disguise

Question 32

What is the problem with the outcome of Re A (2000)?

Answer 32

It is not clear whether the defence extends beyond medical dilemmas, the full implications of this case have yet to be worked out.

Question 33

What was a partial reason the defence of necessity was allowed in Re A (2000)?

Answer 33

Because even though this case has set precedent it is near enough impossible the same circumstances would happen again, so other cases could not rely on this.

Question 34

What case created a 3 part test of when the defence of necessity should be used?

Answer 34

R v Shayler (2002)

Question 35

What did the case of R v Shayler (2002) do?

Answer 35

Create a three part test of when the defence of necessity should be used

Question 36

What are the elements of the three part test created in R v Shayler (2002)?

Answer 36

1) the act must be done to prevent some evil 2) the evil must be directed towards the defendant or someone they have responsibility over 3) the act must be reasonable and proportionate to the evil avoided

Question 37

What case happened in 2002?

Answer 37

R v Shayler

Question 38

In what year was the case of R v Shayler?

Answer 38

2000

Question 39

What is the problem of the test created in R v Shayler (2002)?

Answer 39

It attempted to clarify the law but did not resolve and confusing in the case of Re A (2000). In Re A there was no requirement for the evil to be directed at the defendant.

Question 40

What case happened in 2005?

Answer 40

R v Quayle and others

Question 41

In what year was the case of R v Quayle and others?

Answer 41

2005

Question 42

What was the outcome of R v Quayle and others (2005)?

Answer 42

The court dismissed that necessity should be available to those charged with drug offences because they used drugs for relieving symptoms of conditions like MS.

Question 43

Why principle was laid out in R v Quayle and others (2005)?

Answer 43

That a restrictive approach to the defence was necessary. It cannot be pleased where it contradicts legislative policy.

Question 44

Briefly, what are the differences between duress and necessity?

Answer 44

Murder charges Threats Danger Vulnerability

Question 45

Explain how duress and necessity differ in murder charges?

Answer 45

In Dudley and Stephens (1884) or was said that necessity was not available for murder chargers, similarly as to how duress is not available for murder or attempted murder. However, according to Re A (2000) necessity could be a defence to a murder charge, but it is unclear if this just applies to medical dilemmas or other scenarios.

Question 46

Explain how duress and necessity differ in regards to danger of death...

Answer 46

For both types of duress the defence is only available of the defendant reasonably believed there is a threat of death or serious injury to themselves or others they're responsible for e.g R v Ortiz. However, as demonstrated in are A (2000) this is not necessarily the case

Question 47

In regards to threats, how do duress and necessity differ?

Answer 47

In duress the threat must be imminent. However the principle of necessity is one of 'necessity, not emergency'

Question 48

What is an example of the principle of 'necessity, not emergency'?

Answer 48

In Re A (2000) time was spent coming to a rational choice to avert a greater evil

Question 49

In regards to characteristics of the defendant, how do necessity and duress differ?

Answer 49

Duress allows certain characteristics of the defendant which can make them more vulnerable to be taken into consideration via the Graham test. While necessity focuses on balancing two evils, not the defendants condition.