Catch 22 laws - only have 2 options and both are illegal?
<p>Just out of curiosity I'm looking for examples of laws that require you to do something that puts you in conflict of another law.</p>
<p>This question was sparked by something that happened to my neighbour recently. He found an injured deer in his garden, and trapped it in his shed whilst he tried to find someone to help. A few phone calls later and he found that 1) trapping a wild animal without a license is illegal, and 2) releasing a non-indigenous animal into the wild is also illegal.</p>
<p>So, if he keeps the animal he's breaking the law, and if he releases it he's also breaking the law. I suspect that if he killed and ate it he'd probably also be guilty of 'butchery in an unlicensed premises' or something similar.</p>
<p>Are they any similar examples of mutually exclusive laws?</p>
<p>Update - the deer was a muntjac deer, apparently these are <em>not</em> indigenous (despite being in the UK for over 100 years). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntjac" rel="noreferrer">According to Wikipedia</a> they are on the list of 'Invasive Alien Species' and cannot be 'intentionally released into the environment'.</p>
<p>I'm not suggesting that there was any realistic likelihood of anyone prosecuting my neighbour, I'm just using this as an example of seemingly mutually exclusive laws.</p>

<p>There's a bit of confusion in the question's comments as to whether &quot;trapping&quot; in these circumstances is unlawful:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He found an injured deer in his garden, and trapped it in his shed whilst he tried to find someone to help.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's not an offence, so there is no Catch 22 - it would be permissible under two seperate pieces of legislation:</p>
<p>First, there's <strong><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 4</a> of the Animal Welfare Act 2006</strong> which puts the onus on preventing unnecessary suffering to animals:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>4 Unnecessary suffering</p>
<p>(1)A person commits an offence if—</p>
<ul>
<li><p>(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,</p>
</li>
<li><p>(c)the animal is a protected animal, and</p>
</li>
<li><p>(d)the suffering is unnecessary.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/2?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 2</a> of the 2006 Act defines &quot;protected animal” to include:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(b)it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And secondly, on the basis that the shed is considered a &quot;trap&quot; then the defence to an allegation of unlawful trapping contrary to <strong><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/section/4?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 4</a> Deer Act 1991</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1)Subject to sections 6 and 8 below, if any person—</p>
<p>..</p>
<ul>
<li>(b)uses for the purpose of taking or killing any deer any trap ...</li>
</ul>
<p>he shall be guilty of an offence</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would be at <strong><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/section/6?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 6</a> of the 1991 Act</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...</p>
<p>(3)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(1)(a) or section 4(1)(b) above by reason of setting in position, or using, <strong>any trap or net for the purpose of preventing the suffering of an injured or diseased deer.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As the OP rightly points out, releasing  a Muntjac deer is an offence under <strong><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/14?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 14</a>, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>...any person releases or allows to escape into the wild any animal which—</p>
<ul>
<li><p>(a)is of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to Great Britain in a wild state; or</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b)is included in Part I, IA or IB of Schedule 9,</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>he shall be guilty of an offence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/schedule/9?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 9 of the 1981 Act</a></strong> includes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Common Name: Deer, muntjac</p>
<p>Scientific Name: Muntiacus reevesi</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The principle of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">implied repeal</a> generally ensures that mutually incompatible laws cannot exist.</p>
<p>For example, let's say the hypothetical Red Hats Act 1990 makes it a criminal offence to wear a red hat at any time. Later, Parliament passes the Christmas Party Act 2000 and makes it a legal requirement to wear a red santa hat on Christmas day.</p>
<p>What should you do to comply with the law? You should wear a red had on Christmas day. The later Act impliedly repeals the earlier Act to the extent of the contradiction. The previous provision that it is illegal to wear a red hat at any time is now (impliedly) a provision that it is illegal to wear a red hat at any time other than on Christmas day.</p>

<p>In your example, obedience to the law is not impossible, as suggested. The breaking of the law arose w.r.t. only one law: trapping (and actually that law was not broken, but I'm only addressing the premise that there is a contradiction inherent in the two laws). It is possible to obey both laws, and that is what you are supposed to do.</p>
<p>The courts will <em>interpret</em> two laws that seem to be contradictory in a fashion that is non-contradictory. Seeming contradictions might arise in the US because there are local, state and federal laws, but these are hierarchical jurisdictions, so that local law applies only when state law does not say otherwise, and state law only applies when federal law doesn't say otherwise.</p>

united-kingdom animals conflict-of-laws