Criminal Law

R v. Dudley and Stephens

(1884) 14 QBD 273

Facts

Dudley, Stephens, Brooks and a teenage cabin boy named Richard Parker survived a shipwreck.
They escaped in a small open boat.
They had almost no food and no fresh water.
After many days at sea, all four were extremely weak and faced starvation.
Parker became particularly ill after drinking seawater.
Dudley and Stephens discussed killing one person so the others could eat the body.
No fair lottery or agreed selection was conducted.
Parker did not consent to being killed.
While Parker lay helpless, Dudley killed him with Stephens’ agreement.
Dudley, Stephens and Brooks consumed Parker’s body.
They were rescued several days later.
Dudley and Stephens were prosecuted for murder.
They pleaded necessity, arguing that killing Parker was required to save the greater number of lives.

Whether necessity is a defence to an intentional killing amounting to murder.
Whether one innocent person may lawfully be killed to preserve the lives of several others.
Whether the extreme conditions reduced the offence from murder.

Necessity is not a defence to the intentional murder of an innocent person.
Human life cannot ordinarily be valued through a calculation that permits one person to be sacrificed for others.
A person cannot choose an innocent victim merely because:
the victim appears weaker;
the victim is more likely to die;
more lives may be saved by the killing.
The law distinguishes:
the legal determination of guilt; and
mercy or mitigation in sentencing.
Extreme hardship may explain conduct but does not necessarily justify it.

Dudley and Stephens faced a genuine and terrifying danger of starvation.
The Court did not deny the severity of their suffering.
Nevertheless, Parker had not attacked them or threatened their lives.
He was an innocent and vulnerable person under their protection.
There was no certainty that:
all would otherwise die;
rescue would not arrive;
Parker would die first;
his killing was the only means of survival.
The defendants selected him because he was weak and unable to resist.
Accepting necessity would create an unmanageable rule allowing individuals to decide whose life was less valuable.
The Court asked who would be permitted to make that choice and according to what standard.
A rule based on preserving the greater number could endanger the weakest whenever a group faced extreme conditions.
The killing was therefore deliberate, intentional and legally unjustified.
The defendants’ desire to survive supplied a motive, but motive is not the same as a legal defence.
The case also distinguished necessity from self-defence.
Parker was not an aggressor, and killing him did not repel any unlawful attack.
The Court therefore held that the ordinary ingredients of murder remained established.

Dudley and Stephens were convicted of murder.
The Court held that necessity did not justify the intentional killing of Parker.
They were initially sentenced to death, but the sentence was later commuted to six months’ imprisonment.
Use this case for: necessity is not a defence to the deliberate murder of an innocent person, even where the accused acts to preserve other lives.