"Necessity knows no law". Comment.
Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites.
Question: "Necessity knows no law". Comment. [BJS 2018]Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. ["Necessity knows no law". Comment.]AnswerThe statement "necessity knows no law" suggests that there are situations where the need to act in a certain way, even if it may be illegal or against the law, is so urgent or important that it is justified. In legal terms, this principle is known as the defense of necessity or the doctrine of necessity. It is a common law...
Question: "Necessity knows no law". Comment. [BJS 2018]
Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. ["Necessity knows no law". Comment.]
Answer
The statement "necessity knows no law" suggests that there are situations where the need to act in a certain way, even if it may be illegal or against the law, is so urgent or important that it is justified. In legal terms, this principle is known as the defense of necessity or the doctrine of necessity. It is a common law principle that allows an individual to justify their actions if they were taken in order to prevent greater harm.
The defense of necessity can be used in a variety of situations, including cases of trespass, theft, and even homicide. However, it is important to note that the defense is only available if the harm that is being prevented is greater than the harm caused by the illegal action. Additionally, the defense can only be used if there are no other legal options available.
Case Laws:
1. Dudley and Stephens, (1884) 14 QBD 273
In this case, four men were stranded at sea without food or water. Two of the men, Dudley and Stephens, decided to kill and eat the third man in order to survive. They were rescued a few days later and charged with murder. The court found them guilty of murder but reduced their sentences to six months imprisonment because of the "extreme and extraordinary circumstances" of their situation.
This case established the principle that necessity could be a defense to a criminal charge, but only in very limited and extreme circumstances.
2. Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams, (1971) Ch 734
In this case, the defendant had built a fence on council land in order to protect his property from burglars. The council ordered him to remove the fence, but the defendant argued that he had acted out of necessity. The court found that the defense of necessity did not apply in this case because the defendant could have used other legal means, such as obtaining a court injunction, to protect his property.
This case demonstrates that the defense of necessity is only available if there are no other legal options available.
3. R v. Shayler, (2002) UKHL 11
In this case, a former intelligence officer was charged with violating the Official Secrets Act by disclosing classified information to a journalist. The defendant argued that he had done so out of necessity, in order to expose wrongdoing by the intelligence agency. The court rejected his argument, stating that the defense of necessity was not available in this case because the defendant had not exhausted all other legal options, such as reporting the wrongdoing to a higher authority.
This case highlights the importance of exhausting all legal options before resorting to the defense of necessity.
The Defense of necessity is a principle of common law that allows individuals to justify their actions if they were taken in order to prevent greater harm. However, it is a limited defense that is only available in extreme circumstances and if there are no other legal options available. The cases above demonstrate the narrow scope of this defense and the importance of exhausting all other legal options before relying on it.