Introduction
The concept of necessity, as a potential defence in criminal law, arises when an individual commits an act that would otherwise be considered a crime due to circumstances of extreme duress. These circumstances can stem from threats made by another person, known as duress by threats, or from the situation itself, referred to as duress of circumstances. The technical principles governing this defence require that the individual acted reasonably and proportionately to avoid a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Key requirements include the objective reasonableness of the individual's fear and response, judged against the standard of a sober person of reasonable firmness. Formal language is essential when discussing such legal concepts, avoiding colloquialisms or overly emotional terms.
The Doctrine of Necessity in R v Martin
The case of R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652, represents a significant contribution to the understanding of necessity as a defence, particularly concerning duress of circumstances. The facts of this case involved the defendant, Martin, who was charged with driving while unlicensed. Martin argued that his wife had threatened to commit suicide if he failed to drive his stepson to work on time, as the stepson would lose his job if he was late. Martin's defence relied on the assertion that he believed his wife would carry out the threat. The High Court allowed Martin's appeal, determining that the trial judge should have permitted the jury to consider the defence of necessity. This decision is important for clarifying the parameters within which necessity can be argued as a valid legal defence.
Key Principles Established by Simon Brown J
In his judgment, Simon Brown J laid down crucial principles concerning the defence of necessity. Firstly, he affirmed that English law does recognise a defence of necessity in extreme situations. This defence encompasses situations involving duress through threats from another individual as well as duress stemming from objective dangers affecting the accused or others. The latter is called duress of circumstances. Secondly, the defence requires an objective standard that the accused must be said to have acted reasonably and proportionately in order to avoid a threat of death or serious injury. This point ensures that any claimed defense of necessity will be closely considered by the court and must reach an objective level. Thirdly, if the facts, as asserted by the accused, would permit the consideration of necessity, the matter must be left to the jury. The jury must determine whether the accused may have acted because of a fear of death or serious physical injury based on what they believed to be the situation, and also whether a sober person of reasonable firmness would have acted in the same way in the same situation. These principles provide structure to the defence of necessity, particularly with regards to circumstances.
Objective and Subjective Elements in Necessity
The judgment in R v Martin incorporates both objective and subjective considerations when evaluating a claim of necessity. The subjective component involves assessing the accused's actual belief at the time of the event, specifically whether they believed they were facing a danger of death or serious physical injury. This means that even if a mistaken belief, as long as it is held genuinely, is sufficient to open the door to the defence. The objective part asks whether that belief was reasonable and if it was how a sober person with reasonable firmness would have responded. This involves determining whether someone of “reasonable firmness” would have responded similarly given the same situation. This dual test seeks to balance the particular circumstances faced by a defendant with the need to maintain a standard of conduct that is consistent and fair. It also ensures that the law does not easily allow a perceived danger to justify a contravention of it, while also taking into account real and actual threats that an individual might face.
The Role of the Jury
According to R v Martin, a jury plays a significant role in assessing claims of necessity. The judgment dictates that if, based on the defendant's account of events, there is a possibility that the defence could apply, the trial judge must present the matter to the jury. The jury has the responsibility to determine two issues: whether the defendant was possibly compelled to act because of a genuine fear, and whether a reasonable person would have acted in the same way under the same pressure. This allocation ensures that the defence is not judged solely on legal doctrine but also through a common sense assessment by the jury, giving greater protection to defendants. The direction given by the judge to the jury highlights the need for careful deliberation, considering all evidence, including the defendant’s specific characteristics.
Connections with other Areas of Law
The defence of necessity established in R v Martin connects with other areas of law, notably duress by threats, where another person compels a person to commit an illegal act. Duress by threats occurs when a person commits a crime as a result of a direct threat of death or serious injury to themselves or a loved one. The difference in such a situation from duress of circumstances lies in the origin of the threat, which with duress by threat, is another individual, while with duress of circumstances is the surrounding circumstances themselves. Also, the standard set out in R v Martin regarding how a sober person with reasonable firmness would have reacted draws parallels to the standards used in other areas of law such as self-defence and provocation. Each of these legal standards seek to evaluate an individual’s actions with an objective lens of how an ordinary person would have acted. This comparison demonstrates a common thread in English law where the individual’s reaction must be both genuinely believed and objectively reasonable.
Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling in R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652 solidifies the place of necessity, specifically duress of circumstances, in the English legal framework. The judgment establishes that necessity arises when individuals facing death or severe bodily harm act reasonably and proportionately to evade that danger. The key concept lies in the objective reasonableness of the perceived threat as well as how a person of reasonable firmness would have acted in the same circumstances. This case serves to clearly separate duress by threat, from duress of circumstances, and set out guidelines for both, making it a significant piece of precedent for legal cases involving necessity. The judgment has set a precedent for the courts to leave the matter of necessity to juries so long as it is a possibility, and the principles set forth by Simon Brown J are to be referred to in all relevant cases.
