Can an accused who otherwise satisfies the requirements of the offence under s. 88(1) of the Criminal Code be excused from criminal liability where the possession of a weapon is necessary for defending himself?

94 In my opinion, under s. 88(1) an accused who otherwise satisfies the requirements of the offence should be excused from criminal liability where the possession of a weapon is necessary for defending himself. The usual limits on the common law defence of necessity apply. First, the defence of necessity is limited to situations of clear and imminent peril. Thus, necessity would not excuse the possession of a weapon simply because the accused lived in a high-crime neighbourhood or finds himself among a dangerous prison population. Second, the act must be unavoidable in that the circumstances afford the accused no reasonable opportunity for a legal way out, such as escaping or seeking police protection. Finally, the harm inflicted must be less than the harm sought to be avoided: Perka v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232, at pp. 251-52.