In the upcoming article, by adopting a comparative approach to the criminal law of Australia, we decided to make clear the murder caused by necessity in different scenarios. Hence, after dividing the general premise of “deliberate murder caused by necessity” to three more minor sorts “killing one to save yourself”, “killing one of the parties at risk by a third party,” and “killing fewer people to save the lives of more people”, evidences about both acceptance and rejection of murder under necessityin such circumstances have been discussed. Finally, it is concluded that when it is possible for the perpetrator to evaluate the benefits and harms of his/her action, and he/she had been acted on the basis of acceptable religious and secular rational values ​​for determining the more important value (specially the numerical criteria mentioned in the article), he/she has no criminal responsibility.
* Corresponding Author's E-mail: Shakeri_criminallaw@yahoo.com