Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Defence Of Necessity > Necessity > Flashcards

Necessity Flashcards

1
Q

What case happened in 2000?

A

Re A

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What happened in the case of Re A (2000)?

A

An operation was required to separate two conjoined twins, however the weaker twin would die. Due to religious beliefs, the parents would not consent to the operation and a declaration was sought to confirm the lawfulness of the operation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the outcome of Re A (2000)?

A

The operation was deemed lawful and it was said the defence of necessity would be available to them if charged with murder of the weaker twin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the point of law of Re A (2000)?

A

That necessity and duress are two separate defences and necessity involves ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What established choosing the lesser of two evils is the principle of the defence of necessity?

A

Re A (2000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What year was the case of Re A?

A

2000

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When was the defence of necessity first recognised?

A

The 1980’s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What happened in the 1980’s?

A

The defence of necessity was recognised

The defence of circumstances began to emerge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

In what cases was the defence of necessity not accepted?

A

Dudley and Stephens (1884)

Southwark London borough council v Williams (1970)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happened in the case of Dudley and Stephens (1884)?

A

They ate a cabin boy, who was already near death, in order to survive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the outcome of Dudley and Stephens (1884)?

A

The plea of necessity to a murder charge was rejected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What case happened in 1885?

A

Dudley and Stephens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

In what year was the case of Dudley and Stephens?

A

1884

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the point of law in the case of Dudley and Stephens (1884)?

A

That the defence of necessity cannot be used for a murder charge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What case happened in 1971?

A

Southwark London borough council v Williams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

In what year did the case of Southwark London borough council v Williams happen?

A

1971

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What did Lord Denning say in the case of Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

A

‘Necessity would open a door that no man could open’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is meant by ‘necessity would open a door that no man could shut’?

A

The it is necessary the defence has a limited scope otherwise cases would set precedent which would have to be followed in similar cases meaning many other laws could be broken.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What happened in the case of Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

A

Through no fault of their own a family were in dire need of housing accommodation and moved into empty houses owned by the council. The council went to court to have them evicted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was the outcome of Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

A

The court said despite the families circumstances the defence of necessity didn’t apply and they were evicted, then Lord Denning said “if homelessness were once admitted as a defence admitted to trespass, no ones house would be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut”

21
Q

Who said ‘necessity would open a door which no man could shut’?

A

Lord Denning

22
Q

Why did the courts come to the ruling they did in Southwark London borough council v Williams (1971)?

A

Because otherwise any homeless person would be able to live in someone else’s property as Southwark London borough council v Williams would have set precedent.

23
Q

Why is it important the defence has a limited scope?

A

Because otherwise other laws could be broken because it was deemed ‘necessary’. It having a limited scope upholds public policy and keeps the public safe.

24
Q

What is the ongoing debate of the defence of necessity?

A

If it exists or not

25
Q

What did Lord Goff say in R v Richards (1986)?

A

There was no doubt the defence existed even though it’s scope was not well established

26
Q

What case happened in 1986?

A

R v Richards

27
Q

In what year was the case of R v Richards?

A

1986

28
Q

What happened in the case of R v Richard (1986)?

A

Lord Goff said ‘there is no doubt the defence of necessity exists even thought it’s scope is not well established’

29
Q

What is an example of the necessity being practiced?

A

Emergency services being exempted from observing the speed limit

30
Q

When did the defence of circumstances begin to emerge?

A

The 1980’s

31
Q

What consequences did the duress of circumstances have upon the defence of necessity?

A

Many began to believe that the duress of circumstances was simply necessity in disguise

32
Q

What is the problem with the outcome of Re A (2000)?

A

It is not clear whether the defence extends beyond medical dilemmas, the full implications of this case have yet to be worked out.

33
Q

What was a partial reason the defence of necessity was allowed in Re A (2000)?

A

Because even though this case has set precedent it is near enough impossible the same circumstances would happen again, so other cases could not rely on this.

34
Q

What case created a 3 part test of when the defence of necessity should be used?

A

R v Shayler (2002)

35
Q

What did the case of R v Shayler (2002) do?

A

Create a three part test of when the defence of necessity should be used

36
Q

What are the elements of the three part test created in R v Shayler (2002)?

A

1) the act must be done to prevent some evil
2) the evil must be directed towards the defendant or someone they have responsibility over
3) the act must be reasonable and proportionate to the evil avoided

37
Q

What case happened in 2002?

A

R v Shayler

38
Q

In what year was the case of R v Shayler?

A

2000

39
Q

What is the problem of the test created in R v Shayler (2002)?

A

It attempted to clarify the law but did not resolve and confusing in the case of Re A (2000). In Re A there was no requirement for the evil to be directed at the defendant.

40
Q

What case happened in 2005?

A

R v Quayle and others

41
Q

In what year was the case of R v Quayle and others?

A

2005

42
Q

What was the outcome of R v Quayle and others (2005)?

A

The court dismissed that necessity should be available to those charged with drug offences because they used drugs for relieving symptoms of conditions like MS.

43
Q

Why principle was laid out in R v Quayle and others (2005)?

A

That a restrictive approach to the defence was necessary. It cannot be pleased where it contradicts legislative policy.

44
Q

Briefly, what are the differences between duress and necessity?

A

Murder charges
Threats
Danger
Vulnerability

45
Q

Explain how duress and necessity differ in murder charges?

A

In Dudley and Stephens (1884) or was said that necessity was not available for murder chargers, similarly as to how duress is not available for murder or attempted murder. However, according to Re A (2000) necessity could be a defence to a murder charge, but it is unclear if this just applies to medical dilemmas or other scenarios.

46
Q

Explain how duress and necessity differ in regards to danger of death…

A

For both types of duress the defence is only available of the defendant reasonably believed there is a threat of death or serious injury to themselves or others they’re responsible for e.g R v Ortiz. However, as demonstrated in are A (2000) this is not necessarily the case

47
Q

In regards to threats, how do duress and necessity differ?

A

In duress the threat must be imminent. However the principle of necessity is one of ‘necessity, not emergency’

48
Q

What is an example of the principle of ‘necessity, not emergency’?

A

In Re A (2000) time was spent coming to a rational choice to avert a greater evil

49
Q

In regards to characteristics of the defendant, how do necessity and duress differ?

A

Duress allows certain characteristics of the defendant which can make them more vulnerable to be taken into consideration via the Graham test. While necessity focuses on balancing two evils, not the defendants condition.

A2 Law - Defence Of Necessity (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions