The question demands to compare and contrast three major defenses self-defense,
duress and necessity. We will discuss their definitions using case laws and then relate
the point in comparison then in contrast.
As per Section.3 of The Criminal Act 1867, Self-defense is where the person uses
reasonable force to defend himself from the threat or serious injury, AG Reference no. 2
of 1983, where shopkeeper was allowed the defence when he used petrol bombs to
protect his shop.
Section 5 of criminal procedure and investigation Act 1996 expresses the defence of
Duress, it is considered as unusual defence which includes the claim that may be
justifiable and Duress is where the person commits the offence due to “threats of
immediate death or serious personal violence”, AG v Whelan, it is not applicable for
the crime of murder.
Necessity is a little same to duress of circumstances PERKA V QUEEN define it as
“Necessity encompasses all situations in which acknowledged adherence to the law is
exempted due to an emergency or legitimized by the pursuit of a superior objective”.
But courts are reluctant to use this defense, DUDLEY AND STIFFENS, where a group of 3
men and a boy were shipwrecked and killed a boy for the sake of flesh until they were
rescued. Necessity for murder wasn’t available as it places more value over one life than
another.
Now we will compare these three defenses, they all are used to avoid liability of the
criminal offences as the actions taken by the defendants were reasonably necessary to
avoid the harm or threat. The reasonableness is decided objectively for these three
defenses. Section 76 of criminal Justice and immigration Act defines the objective
reasonable force for self-defense. The case of Hassan is the evidence of objective
reasonableness for duress.
They all are affirmative defenses helping in avoiding the liability even though the
offence has been committed by the defendant and the elements of it are also present.
Both self-defense and duress involve action taken because of unjust threat or harm, the
harm is often threatened by the wrong doer but it is not often by the wrong doer.
Now we will see what contrast these defenses has.
In necessity, the claim is that it propels society’s purposes on the off chance that the
individual breaks the law in insistence of a more not worthy great such activity is in this
duress and necessity. We will discuss their definitions using case laws and then relate
the point in comparison then in contrast.
As per Section.3 of The Criminal Act 1867, Self-defense is where the person uses
reasonable force to defend himself from the threat or serious injury, AG Reference no. 2
of 1983, where shopkeeper was allowed the defence when he used petrol bombs to
protect his shop.
Section 5 of criminal procedure and investigation Act 1996 expresses the defence of
Duress, it is considered as unusual defence which includes the claim that may be
justifiable and Duress is where the person commits the offence due to “threats of
immediate death or serious personal violence”, AG v Whelan, it is not applicable for
the crime of murder.
Necessity is a little same to duress of circumstances PERKA V QUEEN define it as
“Necessity encompasses all situations in which acknowledged adherence to the law is
exempted due to an emergency or legitimized by the pursuit of a superior objective”.
But courts are reluctant to use this defense, DUDLEY AND STIFFENS, where a group of 3
men and a boy were shipwrecked and killed a boy for the sake of flesh until they were
rescued. Necessity for murder wasn’t available as it places more value over one life than
another.
Now we will compare these three defenses, they all are used to avoid liability of the
criminal offences as the actions taken by the defendants were reasonably necessary to
avoid the harm or threat. The reasonableness is decided objectively for these three
defenses. Section 76 of criminal Justice and immigration Act defines the objective
reasonable force for self-defense. The case of Hassan is the evidence of objective
reasonableness for duress.
They all are affirmative defenses helping in avoiding the liability even though the
offence has been committed by the defendant and the elements of it are also present.
Both self-defense and duress involve action taken because of unjust threat or harm, the
harm is often threatened by the wrong doer but it is not often by the wrong doer.
Now we will see what contrast these defenses has.
In necessity, the claim is that it propels society’s purposes on the off chance that the
individual breaks the law in insistence of a more not worthy great such activity is in this
