I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.

I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks

- Client

Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.

- Client

I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.

- Client

Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!

- Client

Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.

- Client

Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.

- Client

Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.

- Client

"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."

This article was written by Fernanda Dahlstrom - Content Editor - Brisbane

Fernanda Dahlstrom has a Bachelor of Laws, a Bachelor of Arts and a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice. She has also completed a Master’s in Writing and Literature. Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal defence, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory and in family law in Queensland.

The Defence of Necessity

The defence of necessity is difficult to argue successfully. It generally applies in situations where a person committed an act that would normally amount to a criminal offence because of an extreme situation in which they or another person were in danger of being seriously harmed if they did not commit the act.

Self-defence or necessity?

In the 2006 decision of R v Rogers the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal stated that the defences of necessity and self-defence were closely related.

The court stated that the defences involved two common elements. These were:

An urgent situation of imminent peril must exist in which the accused must honestly believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for him to do the acts which are alleged to constitute the offence in order to avoid the threatened danger.
Those acts must not be disproportionate to the threatened danger.

When can the defence of necessity be argued?

Some examples of where the defence of necessity may be successfully argued are:

Where a person charged with speeding was exceeding the speed limit to get a seriously injured person to hospital;
Where a person charged with criminal damage broke a window in order to get a baby out of a burning building;
Where a person charged with breaking into a car was trying to rescue a dog that had been left locked in the car on a hot day;

The defence of necessity is unlikely to succeed in situations that fall short of a life-threatening emergency. Some examples are:

Where a person is charged with urinating in public because there was no public toilet nearby;
Where a person is charged with speeding to get to work on time;
Where a person breaks into a shop to steal food or other necessities.

Onus of proof

The accused bears an evidentiary onus to raise the defence of necessity. This means that the defence must call evidence that raises the defence. Once the accused has raised the defence, the prosecution must negative the defence of necessity beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused did not act out of necessity.

Why does the defence of necessity exist?

Courts have stated that the defence of necessity exists for cases where the circumstances overwhelmingly impel disobedience to the law and is limited to very rare and extreme situations. The law cannot leave people free to choose for themselves which laws they will obey and which they will disobey or to construct and apply their own set of values that are inconsistent with those implicit in the law. Nor can the law encourage juries to exercise a power to dispense with compliance with the law where they consider disobedience to be reasonable, on the ground that the conduct of an accused person serves some value higher than that implicit in the law which is disobeyed.

If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.

WHERE TO NEXT?

If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.

WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?

1300 038 223

Sydney Office

Level 35
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Melbourne Office

Level 13
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

Brisbane Office

Level 5
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000

Canberra Office

Level 9
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601

Perth Office

Suite 207
22 St Georges Terrace Perth