R v. Dudley and Stephens

Overview

R v. Dudley and Stephens ([1884] 14 QBD 273) established a momentous criminal precedent: necessity is not a valid defense to a charge of murder.

Facts

Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Brooks, and 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker were shipwrecked in the South Atlantic in an open lifeboat, 1,600 miles from land. After 18 days without adequate food or water, Dudley and Stephens (with Brooks dissenting) decided to kill the weakened cabin boy to feed on his body for survival. Four days later, they were rescued and brought back to England, where Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.

Legal Issue

Defense of necessity in murder charges

Evidence

Open lifeboat logs, rescue ship logbook entries, post-mortem findings, and written statements provided by Dudley and Stephens.

Arguments

The defendants argued that killing the boy was necessary to save three adult lives, and without cannibalism all four would have perished before rescue. The Crown argued that necessity can never justify taking an innocent life.

Judgment

The Queen's Bench Division convicted Dudley and Stephens of murder and sentenced them to death (later commuted by the Crown to six months' imprisonment).

Court's Reasoning

Lord Chief Justice Coleridge held that while self-preservation is a basic instinct, there is no absolute duty to preserve one's own life at the expense of an innocent person. Allowing necessity as a defense to murder would establish a dangerous principle where individuals decide whose life is least valuable.

Rule / Principle Established

Authoritatively established that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense against a charge of murder in common law jurisdictions.

Significance

Authoritatively established that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense against a charge of murder in common law jurisdictions.

Beyond borders

Comparative legal analysis

Comparative analysis has not yet been prepared for this case. Request one below.

Request comparative analysis

Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.

Sources & references

• R v. Dudley and Stephens, High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (1884)