The defendant appealed against the refusal of the judge to allow her defence of necessity in answer to a charge under section 1 of the 1984 Act. She said that it had been necessary to prevent the child being sexually abused.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the legislative scheme relating to the protection of children, of which s.1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is part, is premised on the ultimate position of the court to see that arrangements are made which are in the best interests of the child; that its processes and orders must ultimately determine with whom the child is to have contact, where the child is to reside and who is to have custody. As the orders of the court can more readily be enforced if a child is within the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales, the underlying policy set out in that legislative scheme is reinforced by s.1 of the 1984 Act which makes it a crime to remove a child out of England and Wales without the appropriate consent . . It is impossible to see how, within the legislative scheme, the legislature could have contemplated that a parent could have the defence of necessity available in respect of the offence of removing a child from England and Wales where the whole purpose of making removal an offence was to reinforce the objective of retaining the child within England and Wales so the child could be subject to the protection of the court. ‘
Judges:
Sir John Thomas P, Dobbs, Underhill JJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Crim 389, [2012] 1 Cr App R 31, [2012] 1 WLR 3081, [2012] Crim LR 623, [2012] WLR(D) 54
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Quayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004) CACD 27-May-2005
Each defendant appealed against convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin. They sought to plead medical necessity. There had been medical recommendations to move cannabis to the list of drugs which might . .
Cited – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler CACD 28-Sep-2001
Duress as Defence not closely Defined
The defendant had been a member of MI5. He had signed the Official Secrets Act, but then disclosed various matters, including material obtained by interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act. He claimed that his disclosures were made . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Rogers Admn 15-Oct-1997
Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of drink driving case. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451706