SECTION 81: NECESSITY

NOTHING IS AN OFFENCE BY REASON OF IT BEING

DONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS LIKELY TO
CAUSE HARM, IF IT BE DONE WITHOUT ANY
CRIMINAL INTENTION TO CAUSE HARM, AND IN
GOOD FAITH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OR
AVOIDING OTHER HARM TO PERSON OR PROPERTY.
 Illustration (a): S. 81
A, THE CAPTAIN OF A STEAM VESSEL, SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT ANY FAULT
OR NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART, FINDS HIMSELF IN SUCH A POSITION THAT,
BEFORE HE CAN STOP HIS VESSEL, HE MUST INEVITABLY RUN DOWN A
BOAT B, WITH 20 OR 30 PASSENGERS ON BOARD, UNLESS HE CHANGES THE
COURSE OF HIS VESSEL; AND THAT, BY CHANGING HIS COURSE, HE MUST
INCUR RISK OF RUNNING DOWN A BOAT, C, WITH ONLY TWO PASSENGERS
ON BOARD, WHICH HE MAY POSSIBLY CLEAR. HERE, IF A ALTERS HIS
COURSE WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO RUN DOWN THE BOAT C, AND IN
GOOD FAITH FOR THE PURPOSES OF AVOIDING THE DANGER TO THE
PASSENGERS IN THE BOAT B, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE, THOUGH
HE MAY RUN DOWN THE BOAT C, BY DOING AN ACT WHICH HE KNEW WAS
LIKELY TO CAUSE THAT EFFECT, IF IT BE FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT
THE DANGER WHICH HE INTENDED TO AVOID WAS SUCH AS TO EXCUSE HIM
IN INCURRING THE RISK OF RUNNING DOWN THE BOAT C.
 Illustration (b): S. 81

A IN A GREAT FIRE PULLS DOWN HOUSES IN ORDER TO

PREVENT THE CONFLAGRATION FROM SPREADING. HE
DOES THIS WITH THE INTENTION, IN GOOD FAITH, OF
SAVING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. HERE, IF IT BE
FOUND THAT THE HARM TO BE PREVENTED WAS OF
SUCH A NATURE AND SO IMMINENT AS TO EXCUSE A’S
ACT, A IS NOT GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE.
 R v Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
THE DEFENDANTS AND A CABIN BOY WERE CAST ADRIFT IN A BOAT
FOLLOWING A SHIPWRECK. THE DEFENDANTS AGREED THAT AS THE
CABIN BOY WAS ALREADY WEAK, AND LOOKED LIKELY TO DIE SOON,
THEY WOULD KILL HIM AND EAT HIM FOR AS LONG AS THEY COULD, IN
THE HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BE RESCUED BEFORE THEY
THEMSELVES DIED OF STARVATION. A FEW DAYS AFTER THE KILLING
THEY WERE RESCUED AND THEN CHARGED WITH MURDER.
HELD: THE DEFENDANTS WERE GUILTY OF MURDER IN KILLING THE
CABIN BOY AND STATED THAT THEIR OBVIOUS NECESSITY WAS NO
DEFENCE. THE DEFENDANTS WERE SENTENCED TO DEATH, BUT THIS
WAS COMMUTED TO SIX MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT.
 PP v Ali Umar
THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN CHARGED UNDER CUSTOMS ACT FOR CARRYING TIN-
ORE IN A LOCAL CRAFT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF
CUSTOMS.
THEY CLAIMED THAT THEIR BOAT WHICH WAS DESTINED ELSEWHERE, HAD BROKEN
RUDDER FORCING THEM IN DISTRESS TO ENTER MALAYSIAN WATERS.

HELD: NECESSITY JUSTIFIED THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE MALAYSIAN WATER

ON SPECIFIC REASON THAT THE BOAT IN WHICH THEY WERE TRAVELLING WAS
IN DISTRESS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE RUDDER OF THE BOAT WAS BROKEN IN
INTERNATIONAL WATER.
 IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE RESPONDENT TO SEEK SHELTER FOR
THE SAFETY OF THE BOAT AND TO PRESERVE THE LIVES OF THE CREW DURING SUCH
DISTRESS.