Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Judgment Date: 9 December 1884
Where Reported: (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 273; [1884] 12 WLUK 47
Legal Issues in R v Dudley and Stephens
The legal issue in the case of R v Dudley and Stephens was whether the defendants, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, were guilty of murder for killing Richard Parker, a cabin boy, while stranded at sea.
Material Facts in R v Dudley and Stephens
In 1884, Dudley, Stephens, Parker, and another crew member were stranded at sea after their yacht sank. They were adrift for several days without food or water.
As their situation became desperate, Dudley and Stephens decided to kill Parker and consume his flesh and blood in order to survive. They argued that it was a matter of necessity and self-preservation.
Judgment in R v Dudley and Stephens
The case was initially tried before Justice Huddleston, who directed the jury to return a special verdict. The special verdict was then referred to the Queen’s Bench Division for judgment.
In the judgment delivered by Chief Justice Lord Coleridge, the court held that Dudley and Stephens were guilty of murder. The court rejected the defence of necessity and ruled that the killing of Parker was not justified.
The Reason for the Decision in R v Dudley and Stephens
The court’s decision was based on several key factors. Firstly, the court emphasised that the deliberate killing of an unoffending and unresisting person, such as Parker, was clearly murder unless there was a justifiable reason for the killing.
The court acknowledged that necessity can sometimes excuse criminal acts, but it stated that the necessity must be truly unavoidable and the act must be the only means of self-preservation.
Secondly, the court highlighted that the defendants had other options available to them before resorting to killing Parker.
They could have continued to wait for rescue or attempted to catch fish or birds for sustenance. The court noted that there was no immediate threat to their lives that required them to kill Parker.
Furthermore, the court emphasised that the killing of Parker was not an act of self-defence, as he was weak and unresisting.
The court stated that the duty to preserve one’s own life does not justify taking the life of another innocent person.
The court also considered the moral implications of the case, stating that the absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence.
It emphasised that there are instances, such as in war or in cases of shipwreck, where sacrificing one’s own life for the sake of others may be the highest duty.
However, the court distinguished those situations from the present case, where the defendants had the opportunity to wait for rescue or explore other means of survival.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the court found Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder for killing Richard Parker.
The court rejected the defence of necessity, stating that the killing was not justified as there were other options available to the defendants.
The court emphasised that the duty to preserve one’s own life does not extend to taking the life of an innocent person.
The case of R v Dudley and Stephens remains a precedent in criminal law, highlighting the limits of the defence of necessity and the importance of preserving the sanctity of human life.
