The necessity defence allows a person to commit a criminal act during an emergency to prevent greater harm. This defence can excuse the person’s actions or judge that no crime occurred. However, this defence is not easy to use and has strict requirements:
Reasonable Belief:
The person must genuinely and reasonably believe there is an immediate threat. For instance, consider a school bus driver who loses control of the brakes while transporting children on a mountain road. This situation presents a clear and immediate danger of the bus veering off the road. A reasonable person would recognise this as a real and pressing threat, justifying urgent action to prevent a devastating accident. Also check: best criminal lawyer in bangalore
No Realistic Alternative:
The person must have no other realistic option but to commit the crime. This means there are no practical, safe alternatives available, even though some alternatives might exist. For example, in the case of the bus driver losing control of the brakes while transporting children, if an emergency brake system was available that could safely stop the bus, the driver wouldn’t be justified in committing a crime to prevent the accident because he had a realistic, safer option to address the threat.
No Greater Harm:
The criminal act must cause less harm than the harm avoided. For instance, if the bus driver chooses to drive into an empty barn to stop the bus instead of going off the mountain road, the damage to the shed is less harmful than the potential loss of lives. However, if he chooses to drive into a crowded area, causing more harm than the potential accident, the defence wouldn’t apply. This principle ensures that the action taken is proportional to the threat and minimizes overall harm.
No Involvement in the Threat:
The person must not have contributed to the emergency. For instance, if a bus driver knew the brakes were faulty and chose to ignore fixing them, he played a part in creating the danger. In this case, he likely couldn’t use the necessity defence, as his ignorance contributed to the situation, disqualifying him from claiming that the illegal act was justified to prevent greater harm.
It’s also important to note that in some places, necessity is never a defence for killing another person, regardless of the threat. This means that no matter the circumstances, the killing cannot be justified as necessary.
Conclusion
the necessity defence applies in emergencies where breaking the law is the only way to prevent greater harm. The person must reasonably believe there is an immediate threat, have no realistic alternatives, cause less harm than they prevent, and not have contributed to the threat themselves. All these conditions must be met for the necessity defence to be applicable. This defence justifies criminal acts committed under dire circumstances to avert a more significant danger, ensuring the action taken is proportionate and truly necessary to prevent impending harm.
