PART XV E NTRAPMENT 260 Entrapment no defence to crimes It shall not be a defence to a crime that the accused was trapped into committing the crime concerned, that is to say that the police or other authority or person, by using any inducement or encouragement, caused the accused to commit it for the purpose of obtaining evidence of its commission, but a court may, where it considers that unfair or undesirable entrapment methods were used by the police or other authority or person, take the manner of such entrapment into account as a factor in mitigation of sentence. PART XVI IMPOSSIBILITY 261 Requirements for impossibility to be complete defence (1) Where a person is accused of a crime of which an essential element consists of a failure, omission or refusal to do anything, the fact that it was physically impossible for the accused to do that thing shall be a complete defence to the charge if (a) the impossibility was absolute, that is to say, if it was objectively impossible for anyone in the accused’s position to have done that thing; and (b) the impossibility was not due to the accused’s own fault. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the fact that it is extremely difficult for a person to do a thing shall not constitute impossibility. (3) This section shall not prevent a court, when imposing sentence upon a convicted person, from taking due account of any difficulty experienced by him or her in complying with a law. PART XVII NECESSITY 262 Application of Part XVII of Chapter XIV This Part shall not apply to cases where the harm sought to be avoided consisted of a threat which could give rise to a defence of compulsion in terms of P art XI. 263 Requirements for necessity to be complete defence (1) Subject to this Part, the fact that it was necessary for a person accused of a crime to do or omit to do anything that is an essential element of the crime in order to avoid harm to himself or herself or to another person shall be a complete defence to the charge if (a) the harm which he or she sought to avoid would have resulted in (i) death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself or to another person; or (ii) considerable financial or proprietary loss to himself or herself; and (b) he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the harm referred to in paragraph (a) had started to occur or was imminent; and (c) the harm referred to in paragraph (a) did not arise through his or her own fault; and (d) he or she believed on reasonable grounds that his or her conduct was necessary to avoid the harm referred to in paragraph (a) and that there was no other feasible way of avoiding it; and (e) by his or her conduct he or she did no more harm than was reasonably necessary to avoid the harm referred to in paragraph (a), and the harm he or she did was not disproportionate to the harm referred to in paragraph (a). (2) In determining whether harm would cause considerable financial or proprietary loss to a person for the purposes of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), a court shall have regard to the financial or proprietary resources of the person concerned. 264 Additional requirements for necessity to be complete defence to murder (1) Subject to subsection (2), the fact that it was necessary for a person accused of murder to do or omit to do anything that is an essential element of the crime in order to avoid harm to himself or herself or to another person shall not be a complete defence to the charge unless the following requirements are satisfied in addition to those specified in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section two hundred and sixty-three (a) the harm which he or she sought to avoid would have resulted in his or her death or in the death of his or her spouse, parent or child; and (b) his or her conduct was necessary to avoid the harm referred to in paragraph (a) and there was no other feasible way of avoiding it; and