Description of the legal term Justification:
Justification in British law refers to a defence used to explain or justify why an action that would otherwise be unlawful was legally permissible under the circumstances. This term is rooted in both civil and criminal law contexts and is crucial in cases where an individual or entity must demonstrate that their actions were reasonable, necessary, and proportionate in response to the situation at hand.
In criminal law, justification is often associated with defences such as self-defence or defence of another. In such cases, an individual may argue that they used force to protect themselves or someone else from imminent harm. The force used in self-defence must be no more than is reasonably necessary to repel the threat. If successful, a justification defence can result in a complete acquittal, because it acknowledges that the act, while typically a crime, was legally permissible under the circumstances.
In civil law, this concept is seen in justifications for breaches of contract or tortious behaviour. For example, breaking a contract may be justifiable if it was impossible to perform the contractual obligations due to unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances, a principle known as force majeure. Similarly, in tort law, an action that would typically constitute a trespass or a nuisance could be justifiable if it was carried out to prevent a greater harm or if there was a necessity to act in a certain way.
The burden of proof for a justification defence typically lies with the defendant. They must provide evidence to support their claim that their actions were justifiable. It requires a delicate balancing act by the courts to weigh the interests of the defendant against the rights of any potential victims or the wider community.
Legal context in which the term Justification may be used:
Let us explore an example in the criminal context where justification plays a critical role. John, a homeowner, wakes in the night to the sound of an intruder in his house. Upon confronting the individual, John perceives an immediate threat to his life as the intruder makes a sudden move that John interprets as an attempt to reach for a weapon. John, fearing for his life, strikes the intruder with a baseball bat, causing serious injury.
When John is subsequently charged with grievous bodily harm, he claims the defence of self-defence, asserting that he believed the use of force was necessary to protect himself from harm. During the trial, John’s lawyers must establish that his perception of an imminent threat was reasonable and that the level of force he used was proportionate to the threat he faced. The court will consider the facts, such as the absence of any actual weapon on the intruder, but also the circumstances of John’s perception at the moment of the incident. If the court accepts John’s defence, it signifies that his actions were legally justified given the threat he reasonably believed existed.
In a civil example, consider a scenario involving the demolition of a property. If a property developer, Alex, has obtained all the necessary permissions and follows regulations for the demolition of a derelict building but inadvertently damages an adjacent property, the adjacent property owner may file a civil lawsuit for the damage caused. Alex can argue that the action taken was a justifiable act of necessity, aimed at redeveloping the area and that all reasonable measures were taken to prevent any damage. However, Alex must provide evidence of the precautions taken and demonstrate that the damage was not due to negligence or any failure to mitigate risks appropriately.
The significance of justification in British jurisprudence cannot be underestimated. It provides a framework for individuals and legal entities to align their actions with the law under extraordinary circumstances and affirms a flexible legal system capable of adapting to the complexities of human behaviour and societal needs. It seeks to ensure a balance between upholding the rule of law and recognising circumstances where strict application of the law may not be just or appropriate.
