- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Baker and Wilkins (1997) CA
Case Name: (often cited as Baker and Wilkins)
Year: 1997
Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
Area of Law: Criminal Law - Defence of Necessity
Brief Facts:
Legal Issue:
Defence Raised:
Arguments for the Defence:
Court's Decision (Held):
Reasoning of the Court:
Key Takeaways and Study Points:
Case Name: (often cited as Baker and Wilkins)
Year: 1997
Court: Court of Appeal (CA)
Area of Law: Criminal Law - Defence of Necessity
Brief Facts:
- A couple, Baker (B) and Wilkins (W), had a child together.
- Following their separation, Wilkins was granted limited access to the child.
- During one of these visits, Wilkins failed to return the child to Baker, expressing a fear that the child had been abused.
- Wilkins then informed Baker of an intention to abscond with the child.
- Baker, upon hearing the child crying at Wilkins's residence, forcibly entered the premises.
- Baker was subsequently charged with criminal damage.
Legal Issue:
- Could the defence of necessity be successfully raised for criminal damage committed by breaking into a property, where the motive was to prevent the perceived abuse of a child and the child being unlawfully taken away?
Defence Raised:
- Necessity
Arguments for the Defence:
- Baker argued that the necessity defence was applicable due to:
- Wilkins's refusal to return the child.
- Wilkins's threat to abscond with the child.
- The perceived risk of abuse to the child.
Court's Decision (Held):
- The defence of necessity was not available to Baker.
Reasoning of the Court:
- The Court of Appeal held that the defence of necessity requires a risk of immediate death or serious physical injury.
- In this case, the court found that there was no such immediate risk.
- While the situation involved potential psychological harm to the child, the court did not accept that the need to avoid serious psychological injury constituted a sufficient threat to justify the defence of necessity in criminal damage.
Key Takeaways and Study Points:
- Strict Application of Necessity: This case highlights the narrow scope and strict interpretation of the defence of necessity in English criminal law.
- Focus on Imminent Physical Harm: The defence is primarily concerned with preventing immediate and grave physical dangers, specifically death or serious bodily harm.
- Psychological Harm is Insufficient: The case firmly establishes that the need to prevent psychological harm, even to a child, is generally not a sufficient ground to invoke the defence of necessity for criminal damage.
- Distinguishing from Other Defences: Be aware of how this limitation of necessity differs from other potential defences or legal avenues that might exist in family law or child protection contexts.
0 Comments