Wikia

Case Briefs

R v Dudley and Stephens

Comments0
555pages on
this wiki
R v Dudley and Stephens
UK

Citation

R v Dudley and Stephens [1881-85] All ER Rep 61

Plaintiff

Her Majesty The Queen

Defendants

Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens

Year

1884

Court

Queen's Bench Division

Judges

Lord Coleridge CJ, Barons Pollock and Huddleston, and Grove and Denman JJ

Country

United Kingdom

Area of law

Cannibalism, Murder, Necessity

Issue

Is necessity a defence to a charge of murder?

FactsEdit

The defendants were aboard a ship which sank on July 5, 1884. They and two other crew members (Brooks and Parker) managed to get to a lifeboat with limited rations. On the 24th, having finished the rations and being unable to catch any fish, Dudley pushed his penknife into Parker's jugular vein while Stephens stood by to hold the youth's legs if he struggled. The three fed on Parker's body, with Dudley and Brooks consuming the most and Stephens very little. The crew were rescued on the 29th of July. They were forthcoming about what had happened, believing themselves to be immune from prosecution under the Custom of the Sea.

IssueEdit

  1. Is necessity a defence to a charge of murder?

DecisionEdit

Judgment for the Crown.

ReasonsEdit

Coleridge, writing for the court, found that there was no common law defence of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality:

It would be a very easy and cheap display of commonplace learning to quote from Greek and Latin authors, from Horace, from Juvenal, from Cicero, from Euripides, passage after passage, in which the duty of dying for others has been laid down in glowing and emphatic language as resulting from the principles of heathen ethics; it is enough in a Christian country to remind ourselves of the Great Example [Jesus Christ] whom we profess to follow.
Further, he questioned who was qualified to make the decision of who should live and who die were the principle to be allowed. Coleridge further observed that such a principle might be the "legal cloak for unbridled passion and atrocious crime". However, they were sensible of the men's awful predicament so while they were sentenced to the statutory death penalty, there was a recommendation for mercy. The sentences was eventually commuted to six months imprisonment.

RatioEdit

There is no defence of necessity to a charge of murder.

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki