Criminal Law Defences - Necessity

Necessity presents a moral choice to the courts between the commission of a criminal act and the potential loss of life. Nevertheless it is an important defence that allows for difficult decisions in difficult or near impossible circumstances. The defence originates in Reniger v Forgossa [1552] and has been used in a number of famous cases such as Dudley & Stephens [1884] and Re.A (Children) [2000]. Necessity normally requires the threat to a loss of life in order to prevent the floodgates from opening but in Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA [1986] this was expanded to include a threat to mental health as well. Necessity has come in murder cases but is generally not seen as a defence to murder as per the Dudley and Stephens case but even this has been challenged in recent cases like Re. A. The defence may also arise in a medical law context particularly in relation to end of life care and, more widely in relation to a broader duty of care.