|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Re A (conjoined twins) (2001)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[2001] 1 FLR 1 (2001) (CA). If you ever had reason to wonder whether the massive stipends of the senior judiciary was fully justified, this is one case that might convince you that it is. Of course, for every shocking and distressing case like Re A, they get to sit through dozens of cases about commercial contracts, but that's beside the point.
The facts of Re A are probably well known to anybody who has not been asleep for the last few years. Two babies were born, conjoined at the chest and sharing a number of major organs. Left to themselves, both would have died within weeks. If separated, inevitably one would die; the other might stand a chance. The health authority in whose medical care the babies were sought a declaration that it would not be unlawful to perform the separation. All three judges in the Court of Appeal held that it would not be, despite the procedure amounting essentially to a murder (consider the actus reus_ and _mens rea_ of murder; this is no exaggeration). The only complete defences recognized in law to murder are self defence, and prevention of crime.
There is no general defence of necessity.
The judgements vary in their reasoning; some of the judicial statements seem to recognize a limited defence of necessity (as in, for example, FVWestBerkshireHealthAuthority1990), while others tend towards seeing the procedure as a form of self defence. What the case shows more than anything is the awkward position of necessity in English law.
CaseLaw
CriminalLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|