But cases like these might well be based on the general defence of necessity.

The matter helped establish the defence of necessity in tort.

In order for an accused to successfully argue a defence of necessity they must establish three points.

Canadian criminal law allows for a common law defence of necessity.

Once again Morgentaler used the defence of necessity and was acquitted by the jury.

The principles from this case form the basis of the defence of necessity not being available for murder.

The third requirement for the defence of necessity, proportionality, must be measured on an objective standard.

This acts similarly to the defence of necessity.

Charles opened for the prosecution, outlining the legal arguments and dismissing the defence of necessity.

Dr. Morgentaler used the defence of necessity, that abortions were necessary for his patients' life or health.

The defendants' lawyers argued a defence of necessity.

This was necessary to protect his ship and crew, however, and the defence of necessity was accepted.

The Court first cited precedent that the defence of necessity is invoked only where "true 'involuntariness' is present."

The defence of necessity succeeded in the trespass action as the police had not been negligent in creating the emergency.

Since then, in the 1970s, in several road traffic cases, although obiter dicta, it has been stated that there is a defence of necessity.

Unlike self-defence, the defence of necessity does not require that the defendant's action be directed at a wrongful attacker.

Further, for the defence of necessity to succeed, the threat of injury must be immediate and imminent, and come from an extraneous source.

The defence of necessity was first tested in the 19th century English case of R v Dudley and Stephens.

It should also have discussed the possible defence of necessity, referring to it expressly by that name, not vaguely as the last two sentences of the answer do.

But in the case of In re F (Mental Patient Sterilization), the defence of necessity was allowed.

In it, he gives the reasoning that guided his actions from the first abortions in Quebec and fueled his defence of necessity in providing women with abortions.

The majority concludes that under the Canadian Criminal Code, the defence of necessity excuses the accused of blame rather than acts as a justification of their actions.

In 1884 Huddleston was judge at first instance in the leading maritime case of R v. Dudley and Stephens involving murder, cannibalism and the defence of necessity.

In a later case, Woods v Richards, Justice Eveleigh stated that the defence of necessity depended on the degree of emergency which existed or the alternative danger to be averted.