1 IntroductionNecessity as a ground of justification falls under the third element of crime, illegality, in criminal law. The need to rely on the defense of necessity arises when one must choose between suffering unavoidable harm or danger and breaking the law to avoid such harm and can be used if the accused, faced with such a dilemma, chooses to break the law. and/or cause harm to an innocent third party. Necessity, as a defense to murder, violates the constitutional rights to life and equality because the right to life is considered "prior to all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution." Because, "in the case of a charge of murder, a successful defense based on necessity or duress would imply that a life (that of the accused) is more valuable than that of the deceased", one wonders and it is critically discussed here what the legal position is regarding this accusation. the question should be. English law provides that everyone must be the hero and give their life for that of another, while the position of South African (SA) law is that necessity “may constitute a complete defense to a charge of murder.” »2 Necessity as a Ground of JustificationNecessity as a ground of justification will succeed if one acts out of necessity to protect one's legally recognized interests (or those of others) against unavoidable danger or evil. This unavoidable danger may take the form of an illegal human act, a natural disaster or an animal attack. There is therefore a balancing between the interest threatened and the interest violated. Necessity may be invoked as a defense, making the specific act lawful, in certain circumstances, if the act complies with the requirements of the defense being (1) it must be an unavoidable danger threatening a middle of paper... ...f another one above his. For this defense to succeed, the courts must be satisfied that, in the circumstances, it was necessary to end a life to save one's own. On the other hand, English law unrealistically expects a person in a situation of necessity in a murder case, in contradiction to the SA position, to sacrifice their own life to save that of another. A more realistic way in which the law could evolve in this regard would be to consider both positions, namely that while it may be questionable whether a successful defense of murder contradicts the Constitution, it is necessary to consider a realistic response to 'a person (the accused) in circumstances of necessity. However, careful consideration must be given to the circumstances when considering the success of the defense and the sanction for the behavior...