Abstract
Necessity is not a defence to murder. This principle has been repeated ever since R v Dudley and Stephens. Behind the arguments put forward in the debate lie the sanctity of life, the idea that one could not weigh one life against another, the question as to who should be the one to make that decision and that life as such was the highest good. But is that really true? Has English law not subscribed already to the idea that it may be permissible to take a human life in situations that are commonly classified as duress, duress of circumstances or necessity? This article traces the development of areas of law where necessity arguments and balancing exercises play a role in the decision about the taking of human life, but which are not usually looked at in depth when arguments about necessity are exchanged.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.