​KembaraXtra-Case Law-DPP v Harris (1994)
1. Case Name and Citation:

• DPP v Harris (1994)

2. Factual Background:

• Defendant: A police officer (D).
• Circumstances: D was driving an unmarked police car on police duty, covertly following another vehicle.
• Suspicion: D believed the target vehicle contained individuals planning an armed robbery.
• Offence: D failed to stop at a red traffic light to maintain surveillance on the target vehicle.
• Consequence: D collided with another car.
• Charge: Driving without due care and attention.
• Defence Raised: Necessity.

3. Legal Issue:

• Can the defence of necessity be relied upon for the offence of driving without due care and attention in these circumstances?

4. The Court's Decision (Holding):

• The defence of necessity was not available to the defendant.

5. Reasoning and Key Principles:

• Distinction in Offences: The court distinguished between different driving offences.
  • The defence of duress of circumstances may be available for a charge of reckless driving.
  • However, the present offence of driving without due care and attention was considered less severe and did not attract the defence in this instance.
• Nature of the Offence: The failure to stop at a red light, in this scenario, was described as a minor infringement. The court noted that D could have waited a few seconds and edged forward carefully.
• Requirements for Necessity: The defence of necessity would only apply in exceptional cases.
• Proportionality and Reasonableness: For the defence to succeed, the defendant's actions must have been:
  • Reasonable in the circumstances.
  • Proportionate to the necessity of the situation.

6. Importance and Takeaways for Study:

• Limitations of Necessity: This case demonstrates that the defence of necessity is not a broad get-out clause for all unlawful acts, particularly minor traffic offences.
• Specific Offence Matters: The type of driving offence charged is crucial when considering the applicability of defences like duress of circumstances or necessity.
• High Threshold for Necessity: The defence requires a compelling justification, where the unlawful act was the only reasonable and proportionate means to avert a greater harm. Simply being on police duty or having suspicions is not sufficient to justify a traffic violation.
• Focus on "Exceptional Cases": Reflect on what constitutes an "exceptional case" where necessity might apply to a driving offence. This would likely involve immediate and grave danger that could not be avoided by any lawful means.

7. Further Study Questions:

• What are the key elements of the defence of duress of circumstances? How does it differ from necessity?
• Can you think of hypothetical scenarios where the defence of necessity might successfully be raised for a driving offence? What specific factors would be essential?
• How does the concept of "proportionality" apply to the defence of necessity in criminal law?

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Cichon v OPP (1994) OBD
​Case: Cichon v OPP (1994) OBD
Key Issue: Availability of the defence of necessity when a law is broken to prevent harm to an animal.
Factual Summary:

• The defendant (D) took a pit bull terrier into a public place without a muzzle.
• D's justification for this action was that the dog had kennel cough, and he believed it would be cruel to muzzle a dog that was coughing.
• D was subsequently convicted of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
• D attempted to rely on the defence of necessity, but this defence was denied.

Legal Principle and Reasoning:

1. Distinction between Duress and Necessity: The court highlighted a crucial distinction between the defences of duress and necessity:
   • Duress: Involves a situation where the defendant's will is overborne by threats.
   • Necessity: Involves situations where the defendant's freely adopted conduct is justified by the circumstances.
2. Availability of Necessity for Animal Welfare: The central question before the court was whether the defence of necessity could be invoked when the defendant broke the law specifically to avoid serious harm to an animal.
3. Purpose of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: The Act was legislated with a clear primary purpose:
   • Protection of the Public: The statute's objective was to safeguard the public from the potential dangers posed by certain breeds of dogs.
4. Statutory Exclusion of Necessity: The court determined that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 itself implicitly or explicitly denied the defence of necessity in this context.
   • The Act did not permit individuals to make a subjective "value judgment" that prioritised the welfare of the dog (avoiding cruelty from a muzzle) over the safety and well-being of the public.
   • Therefore, the statutory framework superseded any common law defence of necessity that might otherwise have been considered.

Outcome:

• The defence of necessity was not available to the defendant.
• The conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was upheld.

Key Takeaways for Study:

• Understand the fundamental difference between the defences of duress and necessity.
• Recognise that statutory offences, particularly those designed for public safety, may expressly or implicitly exclude common law defences like necessity.
• Be aware that the courts will scrutinise the underlying purpose and wording of legislation when considering the applicability of defences.
• The defence of necessity is not a general licence to break the law,

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Willer (1986) CA - Defence of Necessity/Duress of Circumstances
​Case: R v Willer (1986) CA
Key Issue: Availability of the defence of necessity (or duress of circumstances) where a defendant commits a criminal act to escape imminent harm.

Facts of the Case:

• The defendant (D) was convicted of reckless driving.
• D drove his vehicle on the pavement at a slow speed.
• This action was taken to escape from a gang of youths who intended to inflict violence upon him.
• D attempted to rely on the defence of necessity.
• The trial judge ruled that the defence of necessity was not available to D.
• Consequently, D changed his plea to guilty.

Legal Principles & Reasoning:

• The Court of Appeal's Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the defence of duress of circumstances was applicable in this scenario.
• Availability of the Defence: The court stated that this defence should have been left to the jury to consider, regardless of whether the specific elements of necessity had been definitively established or whether the defence was considered generally available in all circumstances.
• Temporal Element: The critical factor highlighted was that the threat of violence from the gang was existing and imminent. The defence of duress of circumstances operates while such a threat is present.

Key Takeaways for Study:

• Distinction between Necessity and Duress of Circumstances: While D argued necessity, the court found duress of circumstances to be the more appropriate defence. Understand the nuances between these two defences, although they often overlap.
• Elements of Duress of Circumstances (Implied from the case):
  • Imminent Threat: There must be an immediate and serious threat of death or serious injury.
  • Reasonable Response: The defendant's actions must be a reasonable and proportionate response to the threat. (While not explicitly detailed as a failure in this brief note, this is a general requirement for the defence).
  • No Opportunity for Lawful Escape: The defendant must have had no reasonable opportunity to escape the threat by lawful means.
• Trial Judge Error: The trial judge's failure to allow the jury to consider the defence was deemed an error. This underscores the importance of presenting relevant

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Woods v Richards (1977) OBD - Study Notes
​Case Summary

• Parties: Woods (appellant) v Richards (respondent).
• Court: OBD (Original British Digest - Note: This likely refers to a specific legal reporter or court level not universally known. For modern study, focus on the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, if the original case was there).
• Year: 1977

Facts

• Defendant: A police driver responding to an emergency call.
• Action: Pulled onto the hard shoulder to bypass a queue, believing it to be clear.
• Incident: Collided with a broken-down vehicle on the hard shoulder, causing damage.
• Outcome: Convicted of driving without due care and attention.

Legal Issue

• Could the defence of necessity be raised by a police driver in this situation?
• Should a special standard of care apply to police drivers responding to emergencies?

Holding (Decision)

• Necessity was not a defence in this case.

Reasoning

• No precedent: There was no legal authority supporting the argument for a special standard of care for police drivers.
• Statutory interpretation: The Road Traffic Act 1972, s 3 (driving without due care and attention) did not contain any provisions allowing for exceptions for police drivers.
• Elements of necessity: The existence of the defence of necessity depends on the degree of emergency or the alternative danger that the driver was trying to avert.
• Judicial restraint: Natural sympathy for police drivers does not empower the court to re-write the legal requirements of an offence.

Key Takeaways

• Strict liability for traffic offences: Police drivers, like all drivers, are subject to the same legal standards regarding road traffic offences.
• Limited scope of necessity defence: The defence of necessity is narrowly construed and requires a demonstrable and immediate danger to be averted.
• Parliamentary intent: Exceptions to general road traffic laws must be explicitly provided for by Parliament in legislation.

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Martin (1989)-Defence of Necessity (Duress of Circumstances) I. Introduction to the Defence of Necessity

• English law, in exceptionally limited situations, acknowledges a defence of necessity.
• This defence acknowledges that an individual may be compelled to act unlawfully to prevent a greater harm.

II. Types of Necessity

• Duress (Pressure from Another's Wrongful Conduct):
  • The most frequent manifestation of necessity.
  • Arises from wrongful threats or violence exerted by another person upon the accused's will.
• Duress of Circumstances (Pressure from Objective Dangers):
  • An equally valid form of necessity.
  • Arises from objective dangers that threaten the accused or others.
  • This is conveniently termed 'duress of circumstances'.

III. Key Holding in R v Martin (1989)

• Per Simon Brown J: English law does recognise a defence of necessity, but only in extreme circumstances.
• This defence can arise not only from the direct wrongful actions of another (duress) but also from the pressure of unavoidable, objective dangers (duress of circumstances).

IV. Essential Elements to Understand for Study:

• Rarity: The defence of necessity is not a general excuse for unlawful actions; it is reserved for truly exceptional situations.
• Causation: The unlawful act must be a direct consequence of the pressure (either from another person or objective circumstances).
• Proportionality: The harm avoided must be significantly greater than the harm caused by the unlawful act. (This element is implied by the concept of "extreme circumstances" and the aim to prevent a "greater harm").
• Imminence: The threat or danger must be immediate or imminent. (This is a common characteristic of duress and necessity defences and should be considered).

V. Areas for Further Consideration/Application:

• In what specific scenarios could 'duress of circumstances' realistically arise? Think about situations where there is no immediate human threat but an overwhelming environmental or situational danger.
• How would a court distinguish between a genuine defence of necessity and a voluntary assumption of risk or a convenient excuse?
• Consider the potential overlap and distinctions between the defence of duress and duress of circumstances.

Study Tip: When revising this, try to recall real-world or hypothetical scenarios where someone might feel compelled to break the law due to extreme circumstances. Ask yourself: "Was this an 'extreme circumstance' where the harm avoided was clearly greater than the harm caus

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Southwark LBC v Williams (1971) CA
​This case addresses the legal principle of necessity as a defence to the tort of trespass.

Case Name & Citation:

• Southwark LBC v Williams (1971) CA

Factual Background:

• The defendants were homeless individuals.
• They entered an empty property owned by the local authority (Southwark LBC).
• Their actions constituted squatting in the property.
• The local authority sued them for trespass.

Legal Issue:

• Can homelessness be a valid legal defence to an action for trespass to land, based on the defence of necessity?

Key Judgments & Reasoning:Lord Denning's Judgement:

• Rejection of Necessity as a Defence in this Context: Lord Denning emphatically rejected the idea that homelessness could serve as a defence to trespass.
• "Slippery Slope" Argument: He argued that admitting homelessness as a defence would create a dangerous precedent, making all properties vulnerable.
• Unmanageable Consequences: He stated, "If homelessness were once admitted as a defence to trespass, no one's house could be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut."
• Potential for Abuse: Lord Denning cautioned that allowing such a defence would not be limited to those in genuine extreme need; others might claim or invent need to gain entry.

Edn1Lmd Davies LJ's Judgement:

• Requirement of Imminent Peril: Edn1Lmd Davies LJ reinforced the narrow scope of the necessity defence.
• Urgency and Immediacy: He stated that successful pleas of necessity have historically been confined to situations involving an "urgent situation of imminent peril."
• Distinction from the Present Case: This implies that homelessness, while a serious issue, did not constitute the immediate, life-threatening danger typically required for a successful necessity defence.

Key Takeaways for Study:

1. The Defence of Necessity is Strictly Limited: This case demonstrates that the defence of necessity in tort law, particularly in cases of trespass, is applied very narrowly.
2. Homelessness is Not Sufficient for Necessity: While a pressing social problem, homelessness, in itself, is not recognized as a legal justification for trespassing on private property.
3. Imminent Peril is Crucial: To succeed with a defence of necessity, there must be a clear and immediate threat of danger that can only be averted by the infringing act.
4. Preventing a "Slippery Slope": The courts are cautious about creating defences that could be easily exploited and lead to widespread disregard for property rights.
5. Distinction between Social Problems and Legal Defences: The case highlights the difference between acknowledging a social issue (like homelessness) and its legal standing as a defence to a civil wrong.

To Study This Material Effectively:

• Define Trespass: Ensure you understand the elements of the tort of trespass to land.
• Define Necessity: Understand the general principles of the defence of necessity in tort law. What are the typical requirements?

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-O'Toole (1971) CA - Necessity as a Defence
​This case examines the defence of necessity in the context of driving offences. It is crucial to understand the limitations and application of this defence as established by the courts.

Case Summary: O'Toole (1971) CAFacts:

• The Defendant (D) was an ambulance driver responding to an emergency call.
• D drove in excess of the speed limit. It is important to note that the speed limit does not apply to ambulances when responding to emergencies.
• D collided with another vehicle and was subsequently convicted of dangerous driving.
• D was disqualified from driving and appealed against this sentence.

Issue:

• Could necessity be a defence to the charge of dangerous driving in these circumstances?

Held:

• Necessity was not a defence in this case.

Reasoning (Per Sachs LJ):

• The court emphasized the need to balance competing public interests.
• On one side is the essential need to respond to emergencies without undue delay ("not unnecessarily impeding the answering of calls of humanity in emergencies").
• On the other side is the need to protect other road users from unnecessary risks ("not involving road users in unnecessary risks").
• The court stated that "Great care has to be applied in determining on which side of the line a case falls." This implies a strict and careful evaluation of the specific circumstances to determine if the risk created by the driver's actions was truly justified by the emergency.

Outcome of Appeal:

• The sentence of disqualification was reduced to an absolute discharge. This means the conviction remained, but no penalty beyond the record of conviction was imposed.

Key Takeaways for Study:

1. Definition of Necessity: Understand that while responding to emergencies is important, it does not automatically excuse dangerous driving. The law requires a careful balance.
2. Public Interest Balancing Act: The core principle here is the judicial assessment of whether the emergency justified the risk. The court will scrutinize the actions taken to ensure they were the least risky option available in the circumstances.
3. Speed Limit Exemption: Be aware that emergency vehicles have specific exemptions from general road traffic regulations (like speed limits) when responding to emergencies. However, this exemption is not absolute and does not negate the duty to drive with due care.
4. Distinction Between Exemption and Defence: The fact that speed limits don't apply to ambulances in emergencies is an exemption. This is distinct from necessity as a defence to a more general charge like dangerous driving, which requires a higher threshold of justification.
5. **Consequences of Failed

​KembaraXtra-Case Law- Dudley and Stevens (1884) QBD-The Defence of Necessity
​This guide outlines the legal principle of necessity in English law, focusing on a foundational case.

1. The Principle of Necessity

• Definition: Necessity is a legal defence that may, in certain limited circumstances, justify actions that would otherwise be considered unlawful. It arises when an individual commits a crime to prevent a greater harm from occurring.
• Application: The core idea is that the law may tolerate a lesser wrong to avert a more significant evil.

2. Key Case: Dudley and Stevens (1884) QBDThis landmark case established a crucial limitation on the defence of necessity.

• Facts:
  • Two defendants and a cabin boy were shipwrecked and adrift at sea for 20 days.
  • After eight days without food and six days without water, the defendants, fearing imminent death, killed the cabin boy.
  • They consumed his flesh and blood for sustenance.
  • They were subsequently rescued.
• Defence Argument: The defendants argued that killing the cabin boy was necessary for their survival, and that he would have died imminently regardless.
• Court's Decision:
  • The defendants were convicted of murder.
  • The court held that necessity was NOT a defence in this situation.
• Reasoning (Lord Coleridge CJ):
  • The law does not permit individuals to declare temptation as an excuse for criminal conduct.
  • Compassion for the accused cannot alter or weaken the legal definition of a crime.
  • The court emphasized that individuals do not have the right to take another person's life, even to save their own.
• Outcome:
  • Despite the conviction for murder, the death penalty was commuted to six months' imprisonment. This highlights the tension between the strict legal application of the law and potential considerations of mitigating circumstances, though the core principle regarding necessity remained firm.

3. Core Takeaway on Necessity in English Law (Post-Dudley and Stevens)

• Strictly Limited: As established by Dudley and Stevens, necessity is generally not a defence in English law, particularly when it involves taking an innocent life.
• No Right to Self-Preservation by Killing: The law does not grant individuals the right to preserve their own lives

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Gotts (1992)-Duress and Attempted Murder
​Facts:

• Defendant (D): Aged 16.
• Alleged Offence: Charged with attempted murder.
• Circumstances: D was instructed by his father to kill his mother (who was separated from the father).
• Alleged Threat: D claimed his father threatened to shoot him if he did not comply.
• Action Taken: D stabbed his mother.
• Outcome: A passer-by intervened, preventing further injury. The mother survived, though seriously injured.

Legal Issue:

• Can the defence of duress be raised for the offence of attempted murder?

Held (Decision of the Court):

• The defence of duress is not available for the charge of attempted murder.

Reasoning of the Court:

• Logical Inconsistency: The court found no justification in law, morality, or logic for distinguishing between a person who completes a murder under duress and one who attempts it under duress.
• Intent: The mental element (intent) required for attempted murder is considered greater than that for murder. The court highlighted that it was a matter of chance that the defendant was charged with attempted murder rather than actual murder.
• No Defence for Attempt: To allow the defence of duress for attempted murder would, in essence, permit a defence where the intent to cause serious harm (or death) was present, even if the act did not reach its ultimate conclusion.

Key Takeaways for Study:

1. Core Principle: Duress is generally available as a defence to most criminal offences, except in specific circumstances where the law deems it inappropriate.
2. Attempted Murder Exception: R v Gotts firmly establishes that duress is not a defence to attempted murder.
3. Underlying Rationale: The decision is rooted in the idea that one who intends to kill (even under duress) should not escape criminal liability for that intent, particularly when the intent for attempt is arguably higher than for murder itself.
4. The "Chance" Factor: The court's emphasis on the "pure chance" of the charge highlights the principle that the law should not be circumvented by the fortuitous intervention of a third party. The defendant's intent and actions remain central to the criminal liability.

Self-Study Questions:

1. What were the key factual circumstances that led to the charge against D in R v Gotts?
2. What was the central legal question before the court in this case?
3. What was the final decision of the court regarding the availability of duress for attempted murder?
4. Explain the court's reasoning for denying the defence of duress to an attempted murderer. Focus on the arguments of legal, moral, and logical justification.
5. How does the court's discussion of the "intent required for attempted murder" influence its decision?
6. Why is the fact that the mother survived considered a matter of "pure chance" in the context of the defence of duress?
7. Can you identify any potential arguments against the court's decision in R v Gotts? (Consider this critically).
8. How does this case inform your understanding of the limitations of the defence of duress in English criminal law?

​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Howe and Bannister (1987) - Duress and Murder
​Case: DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch (1972) AC 653 (This case, though not explicitly detailed in the provided text, is the foundational case that Howe and Bannister addresses and modifies regarding duress and murder. Understanding Lynch is crucial for grasping the impact of Howe and Bannister.)
Focus: The availability of the defence of duress in relation to charges of murder.

I. Legal Principle Established in Howe and Bannister (1987):

• Rejection of Duress as a Defence to Murder: The House of Lords definitively held that the defence of duress is not available to a charge of murder.
• Rationale for Exclusion:
  • Sacrifice of Innocent Life: A defendant who takes the life of an innocent person under threat (duress) is considered to have made a deliberate choice to kill, even if coerced.
  • Moral Stance: Lord Hailsham famously described such a defendant as a "coward and a poltroon," highlighting the severe moral condemnation attached to taking an innocent life under duress.
  • Absence of Distinction Between Principal and Accessory: The law does not draw a firm distinction between a principal offender and an accessory in a murder charge. This means that if duress is not available to the principal killer, it is also not available to someone who aided or abetted the killing under duress.
  • No Basis for Distinction: Consequently, there is no legal basis to permit duress as a defence to any degree of murder.

II. Key Takeaways for Study:

• Absolute Bar: Understand that Howe and Bannister creates an absolute bar to the defence of duress in murder cases. This is a critical distinction from other offences where duress might be available.
• "Coward and a Poltroon": While a strong quote, focus on the underlying legal reasoning it represents: the profound societal and legal disapproval of sacrificing an innocent life, even under threat.
• No Degrees of Murder: Be aware that this applies to any charge of murder, regardless of the perceived "degree" or intent.
• Contrast with Other Offences: Consider how Howe and Bannister differs from cases where duress is a valid defence (e.g., theft, assault). This comparative understanding will reinforce the specific rule for murder.

III. Points to Memorise:

• Case Name: Howe and Bannister (1987)
• Core Ruling: Duress is not a defence to murder.
• Key Quote/Reasoning: "Coward and a poltroon" (per Lord Hailsham) due to the sacrifice of an innocent life.
• Reason for No Distinction: No firm basis for distinguishing principals and accessories in murder for the purpose of the duress defence.