​KembaraXtra-Case Law-(Pommell (1995) CA)-The Defence of Necessity
​This guide outlines the key principles and limitations of the defence of necessity as established in Pommell (1995) CA.

Case: Pommell (1995) CAFacts:

• The defendant (D) was convicted of possessing a prohibited weapon and ammunition without a firearms certificate under the Firearms Act 1968.
• D claimed the defence of necessity, stating he took the gun the previous night from an individual threatening others.
• His intention was to surrender the firearm to the police.
• The trial judge disallowed the defence, ruling that D had failed to report to the police immediately.

Legal Issue:

• Can the defence of necessity be raised when the defendant's actions, though intended to prevent immediate harm, do not involve an immediate surrender to authorities?

Held (Court of Appeal Decision):

• Core Principle of Duress/Duress of Circumstances: The underlying rationale of these defences is to permit an individual to contravene the literal wording of the law in exceptional circumstances to avert a "greater evil" befalling themselves.
• Distinction in Application: This defence is not available where the defendant commendably breaks the law with the primary intention of preventing another party from committing a "greater evil."
• Requirement for Desisting: To successfully invoke the defence of duress of circumstances, the defendant must have "desisted from committing the crime as soon as he reasonably [could]" (per Kennedy LJ). This implies an obligation to take reasonable steps to end the unlawful conduct and report to the authorities without undue delay.
• Scope of the Defence: While previous cases concerning necessity primarily involved road traffic offences, the defence is not confined to these situations. Due to its close relationship with the defence of duress, necessity can potentially apply to all criminal offences, with the explicit exceptions of murder and attempted murder.

Key Takeaways for Study:

1. Purpose of Necessity: Understand that necessity permits breaking the law to avoid a greater evil.
2. Self-Preservation vs. Protecting Others: Differentiate between using necessity for personal safety and using it to prevent harm to others. The latter situation has stricter requirements.
3. Immediacy and Reporting: The Pommell case highlights the critical importance of reporting