CASE NAME	R v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 QBD 273
CITATION	[1884] EWHC 2 (QB), (DC) 49 JP 69, 54 LJMC 32, 15 Cox CC 624, 33 WR 437 [1881–1885] ,All ER Rep 61, 52 LT 107, 1 TLR 118
COURT	High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Lord Coleridge
PETITIONER	King
RESPONDENTS	Dudley and Stephens
DECIDED ON	Decided on 9th December 1884

INTRODUCTION

The case highlights the monstrous aspect of human nature and demonstrates how it is sparked by helplessness and impending death. Four men from the English ship Mignonette are caught in a storm and stranded in a boat thousands of miles from land, with no food or water to sustain them. They burn through their meager food supply and are left with nothing but the wide ocean and no view of the shore. The ship’s captain, Thomas Dudley, determined that a lot should be drawn to sacrifice one of the four men so that the other three may survive by feasting on his flesh after they had been without food and drink for seven days. Edward Stephans agreed. Ned Brooks declined to employ the procedure, and Richard Parker, the cabin boy, was not consulted. Dudley and Stephens made the decision to murder the boy a few days later. Following the murder, the three men survived for four days by eating the boy’s flesh before being saved. 

After being tried in Falmouth initially, both men were freed on bond and appeared in court before Baron Huddleston, the judge, and a jury in Exeter in November. There, the jury returned a special verdict at the judge’s request, outlining the facts and reserving the right to determine whether the men were guilty of murder or not. This process had been abandoned for a long time before being brought back specifically for the occasion in 1884. It was determined to present the case before the five judges that make up the Queen’s Bench Division in London using a variety of procedural techniques. They received a murder conviction. Originally given a death sentence, it was later commuted to life in prison. It was decided that need is not an excuse for breaking the law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The story centers on the ethically dubious act of cannibalism and the legal quandary of whether necessity qualifies as a defense. Four sailors from the English ship Mignonette find themselves in a dangerous storm thousands of miles out at sea in a skiff with little food or water. Captain Thomas Dudley offers a terrible idea after they run out of food and can see no land: they would draw lots to decide which of the four, Edward Stephens and Ned Brooks included, would be sacrificed in order to support the rest. 

Richard Parker, the cabin boy, is not consulted. The boy is then killed by Dudley and Stephens so they can survive. After being rescued, the two men are tried in Falmouth, given bail, and then put on trial in Exeter, where the court will decide whether or not to find the two men guilty or not. A special verdict will be sought. 

When the case gets to a London court of five judges, they convict Dudley and Stephens of murder. They were originally given a death sentence, but it was eventually reduced to life in prison. The historic decision makes it abundantly clear that need is insufficient justification for breaking the law.

ISSUES RAISED

• Is it possible to use necessity as a defense against murder and does this mean that the act is acceptable? 
• Is it permissible to call the boy’s death, in this instance, an act of self-defense?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of petitioner

• The petitioner alleged that killing Parker was not essential and it was not a defence of necessity. 

• Unless the intentional killing of this non-offending, non-resisting youngster can be explained by a legally acknowledged justification, it is evident that the act was murder. There was no such justification in this instance, unless the killing was warranted by so-called “necessity.” However, the conduct that was tempting to do here was not required by law in any way.

Argument on behalf of respondent

• In their defense of necessity, Dudley and Stephens maintained that killing Parker was essential to their own survival. They said that if they hadn’t slain Parker and eaten his corpse, they would have starved to death. 
• The soldiers were adrift at sea without food or drink, the defense claimed, and they were in a terrible predicament. They were famished and close to death after twenty days. Because Parker was the weakest and most vulnerable, he was slaughtered so the others may live off of his flesh and blood. Dudley and Stephens argued that the idea of necessity—which holds that breaking the law in an emergency to protect oneself is acceptable—provided moral justification for their acts. 
• The guys exhibited remarkable discipline, according to the defense, by delaying such an act for 20 days and only acting then when their own lives were in danger. 
• They argued that, considering the men’s reasonable assumption that they would not live in any other situation, Parker’s killing was both inevitable and permissible in the present circumstances. Essentially, the argument behind the necessity defense was that, considering their current situation and the immediate danger to their lives, Dudley and Stephens should be absolved of their murderous actions. 

JUDGMENT

Following a special verdict at the trial of an indictment for murder, it was revealed that the deceased, a boy between the ages of seventeen and eighteen, and the two seamen, D. and S., had been forced to board an open boat after being swept away in a storm on the high seas; the boat was drifting on the ocean, likely more than a thousand miles from land; on the eighteenth day, after going without food for seven days and water for five, D. suggested to S. that they should draw lots to determine who would be executed in order to save the others; they later believed it would be better to kill the boy than to save their lives; that on the twentieth day, D. killed the boy with S.’s consent, and for the next four days, D. and S. feasted on the boy’s flesh; that at the time of the act, no ship was in sight, and that there was no realistic chance of relief; that given these circumstances, the prisoners were likely to starve to death unless they fed on the boy or one of themselves at that time. 

The Court held that in light of these circumstances, there was no evidence to support the inmates’ killing of the youngster and that they were therefore guilty of murder.

CONCLUSION

The court erred in its distinction between an excuse and a justification. While the modern perspective describes the argument of necessity as a justification but falls short of defining what kind of justification it is, the classical approach sees it as a potent excuse. Despite the fact that “what is done from necessity is involuntary not accompanied by thought,” according to Aristotle’s Magna Moralia. It has no bearing on the case’s verdict. If the defendant used need as an explanation, they would be considered criminals but not punished. Justifying everything with the argument of need would erode the system over time, making people more likely to overestimate the risk they face and give in to temptation. 

The two defendants made the decision to kill the boy based on utilitarian reasons. According to Jeremy Bentham, “the just thing to do is to maximize utility,” or the ratio of happiness to sorrow and pain to pleasure. According to this idea, morality is based on maximizing pleasure. It is centered on the interests of the largest possible number of people. Weighing an action’s rewards and drawbacks determines its morality. According to consequentialist moral theory, the proper course of action is determined by the results of a decision. The defendants believe that killing Parker was appropriate and that these ideas validate their position. 

Cannibalism was a common practice among sailors and other seafarers in the 19th century, but there were some restrictions. To maintain equity, a lotting procedure was required, along with the approval of all those in attendance. This was the appropriate course of action to take at the moment and the correct thing to do. In their day, Dudley and Stephens were not the only cannibals. A hazy hypothesis is that perhaps that’s why they were tested—they cheated and didn’t adhere to protocol. Everything changed following the ruling. Cannibalism was highly criticized for being violent and barbaric, and the sea tradition was attacked as a blasphemous request to God to approve slaughter. This case has established some excellent law. It improves the legal system by deterring individuals from enforcing the law themselves. No crime can ever be justified by necessity. Beyond simply doing what is right, morality is a basic regard for other people.