Question

Principle: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its 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 a person or property.

Facts: Mr. Sharman, 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 twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur the risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board and which he may possibly clear.

• A. Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity
• B. Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence
• C. Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
• D. This is a clear case of accident so Sharman cannot be held responsible

Hint:

Break the Principle into three tests: knowledge of likely harm, no criminal intention, good faith purpose of avoiding other harm. Check all three against the captain's decision to change course.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
A ship's captain is trapped between two bad outcomes. Hold his course and he certainly runs down a boat carrying twenty or thirty people. Change course and he risks hitting a boat carrying two, though he may even clear it. The question is whether turning is an offence.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The Principle lays down three conditions, and all three must be met for the act to escape being an offence.
One, the act is done merely with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm.
Two, it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm.
Three, it is done in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm to a person or property.
This is the defence of necessity. Note what it does not require. It does not require that harm be avoided altogether, only that the actor be choosing the lesser harm honestly.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Test condition one. When Sharman turns, he knows he may hit boat C. That is knowledge of likely harm, which is exactly what the Principle contemplates.
Test condition two. Does he want the two passengers on boat C hurt? Nothing in the facts suggests it. His whole aim is to miss boat B. There is no criminal intention.
Test condition three. Turning is done to avoid running down a boat with twenty or thirty people. That is other harm to persons, and avoiding it is a plainly honest purpose. He also may possibly clear boat C altogether, which shows he is not simply substituting one certain death for another.
All three conditions are met, so the Principle says his act is not an offence. The label for this in the facts is necessity, choosing the lesser of two unavoidable harms in good faith.

Step 4: Checking the wrong options:
Option (B) alleges criminal negligence. The facts state in terms that Sharman found himself in this position "suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part", so negligence is ruled out by the facts themselves.
Option (C) alleges culpable homicide. Even if boat C is struck, the Principle removes the act from the category of offence altogether, so no homicide charge can be built on it.
Option (D) calls it an accident. An accident is an unintended mishap that happens without any choice being made. Here Sharman consciously chose to change course knowing the risk, so this is a deliberate act protected by necessity, not an accident.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Sharman acted with knowledge but without criminal intention and in good faith to avoid greater harm, so he commits no offence. That is option (A).