ABSTRACT
In New Zealand self-defence, compulsion and necessity require distinct facts and are therefore only available in the alternative. Whilst, Wright argues that this issue necessitates an inquiry into the accused's subjective beliefs for the purposes of self-defence, necessity, by way of contrast, is excuse based and therefore legitimately requires reasonable grounds before the accused can benefit from their errors of fact. The requirements of common law defence of necessity in New Zealand, appear to be primarily informed by the notion of normative involuntariness, and the defence may therefore owe its origins to 'duress by circumstances' rather than necessity. The law is simply stated-intoxication is an altered state of mind that must be considered, in deciding whether the accused voluntarily performed the actus reus, whilst possessing the appropriate mens rea, and had one of the defences available to him/her. It is trite law that insanity is concerned with the 'mind', rather than any organic deterioration of the brain.
