R v Kitson (1955) 39 Cr App R 66 (CA)
A drunk man who had fallen asleep at the back of the car, after his brother-in-law had drove him to X, awoke to find the car moving down the hill, and he steered the car to safety, avoiding injury. He was convicted of a drink-driving offence.
Should he have been convicted? Its important to consider the implications of the law allowing the defence of necessity, that is when a person claims to do 'the lesser of two evils'.
Lord Denning, in the case Southwark LBC v Williams, said:
"if hunger was allowed to an excuse for stealing, it would open a door through which all kinds of lawlessness and disorder ..."