Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 29–49

On Necessity as a Defence to Crime: Possibilities, Problems and the Limits of Justification and Excuse

Original Paper

Abstract

The article reviews recent developments in England in the law of necessity as a defence to crime and calls for its further extension. It argues that the defence of necessity presents the criminal law with difficult questions of competing values and the ordering of harms. English law has taken a nuanced position on the respective roles of the courts and the legislature in the ordering of harms, although the development of the law has been pragmatic rather than coherently theorised. The law has granted necessity some scope as an exculpatory principle in the law of general defences, but it has also respected the primacy of the legislature as the legitimate arbiter of many of the competitions of value that necessity throws up. The recognition of necessity has not been in the form of a single unified defence of that name. Rather it has taken the form of a number of defences, based on a principle of necessity, but with different nomenclature and different rationales. This approach to necessity is defended as right in terms of principle and policy. Any further development of necessity as a general defence should be restricted to two contexts, namely those of emergencies, and of conflicts of duty, where a danger of death or serious injury is present.

Keywords

Defences Necessity Justification and excuse 

References

  1. Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Sir Blackstone, W. (1765). Commentaries on the Laws of England (4 Vols). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Bohlander, M. (2006). In Extremis – Hijacked Airplanes, ‘Collateral Damage’ and the limits of the criminal law. Criminal Law Review, 579–592.Google Scholar
  4. Brudner, A. (1987). A Theory of Necessity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(3), 338–368.Google Scholar
  5. Clarkson, C. M. V. (2004). Necessary action: A new defence. Criminal Law Review, 81–95.Google Scholar
  6. Dressler, J. (1989). Exegesis of the law of Duress: Justifying the excuse and searching for its proper limits. Southern California Law Review, 62, 1331–1386.Google Scholar
  7. Duff, A. (1993). Choice, character and criminal liability. Law and Philosophy, 12, 345–383.Google Scholar
  8. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, G. (1978). Rethinking criminal law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, S. (1991). Necessity’s newest inventions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 125–135.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, J. (1996). Justifications and reasons. In A. P. Simester & A. T. H. Smith (Eds.), Harm and culpability (Chap. 5). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, J. (1998). The gist of excuses. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 1, 575–598.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, S. (2005). Direct action and the defence of necessity. Criminal Law Review, 371–380.Google Scholar
  14. Glazebrook, P. R. (1972a). The necessity plea in English criminal law. Cambridge Law Journal, 31, 87–119.Google Scholar
  15. Greenawalt, K. (1984). The perplexing borders of justification and excuse. 84 Columbia Law Review, 84, 1897–1927.Google Scholar
  16. Gur-Arye, M. (1986). Should the criminal law distinguish between necessity as a justification and necessity as an excuse? Law Quarterly Review, 102, 71–89.Google Scholar
  17. Sir Hale, M. (1736). History of the pleas of the crown (2 Vols). London: London Professional Books.Google Scholar
  18. Horder, J. (1998). Self-defence, necessity and duress: understanding the relationship. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 11, 143–165.Google Scholar
  19. Horder, J. (2000). On the irrelevance of motive in criminal law. In J. Horder (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence (4th Series, p. 173). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Horder, J. (2004). Excusing crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Leverick, F. (2007). Defending self-defence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 17, 563–579.Google Scholar
  22. Moller, K. (2006). On treating persons as ends: The German Aviation Security Act, human dignity, and the German Federal Constitutional Court. Public Law, 457–466.Google Scholar
  23. Norrie, A. W. (2001). Crime reason and history (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ost, S. (2005). Euthanasia and the defence of necessity: Advocating a more appropriate legal response. Criminal Law Review, 355–370.Google Scholar
  25. Robinson, P. (1982). Criminal law defenses: A systematic analysis. Columbia Law Review, 82, 199–291.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, J. (2001). Necessity, private defence and the killing of Mary. Criminal Law Review, 515–526.Google Scholar
  27. Simester, A. P., & Sullivan, G. R. (2007). Criminal law theory and doctrine (3rd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Simpson, A. W. B. (1984). Cannibalism and the common law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, J. C. (1989). Justification and excuse in the criminal law. London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, J. C. (1994). The right to life and the right to kill in law enforcement. New Law Journal, 144, 354–356.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, J. C., & Hogan, B. (2005). Criminal law (11th ed.) prepared by D. Ormerod. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stephen, J. F. (1883). History of the criminal law of England. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Stephen, J. F. (1887). Digest of the criminal law (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Uniacke, S. (1994). Permissible killing: The self-defence justification of homicide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Uniacke, S. (2001). Was Mary’s death murder? Medical Law Review, 9, 208–220.Google Scholar
  36. von Hirsch, A., & Jareborg, N. (1991). Gauging criminal harms: A living standard analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 1–38.Google Scholar
  37. Westen, P. (2006). An attitudinal theory of excuse. Law and Philosophy, 25, 289–375.Google Scholar
  38. Westen, P., & Mangiafico, J. (2003). The criminal defense of duress: A justification, not an excuse—and why it matters. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6, 833–950.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, G. (1961). Criminal law the general part (2nd ed.). London: Stevens & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, G. (1982). The theory of excuses. Criminal Law Review, 732–742.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, W. (2002). Central issues in criminal theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations