Queens VS Dudley and Stephens

Queens VS Dudley and Stephens
December 9, 1884
Criminal Law -- Murder -- Killing and eating Flesh of Human Being under Pressure of Hunger --
"Necessity" -- Special Verdict -- Certiorari -- Offence on High Seas -- Jurisdiction of High Court
Important Dates and people:
Date decided: December 9, 1884
Ruling court: High Court of Justice
Date argued: 1881
Decided: 9 December 1884
Judge(s) sitting: Lord Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice; Mr. Justice Grove; Mr. Justice Denman; Lord
Pollock; Lord Huddleston
Introduction
A typical incident at the sea during those times are the grounds of this case which left the whole court
room and the jury perplexed. However, this case was not typical at all. In fact, it is one of the most
important cases that shaped the structure of law. A case remembered vividly by most criminal lawyers and
now by me.
Visual Aid
https://www.quimbee.com/cases/regina-v-dudley-and-stephens
The visual aid maybe be used to get a clear understanding of the case.
Background of the case
Would you kill one of your mates to feed on them when food was insufficient? If you did then would
it be murder? Do you think that the defense of necessity would do right by this situation?
A common practice while at sea was cannibalism. When the food was insufficient, they men of the sea
would take lots or pick a person to feed on. That is exactly what happened in here as well.
This 19th century British law case brings forth the beastly side of human nature and shows how it is
triggered when faced with helplessness and proximity to death.
The two defendants Dudley and Stephens became shipwrecked by a storm. Accordingly, they were forced
to abandon their ship and were stranded in a small emergency boat with Edward Brooks and a seventeen-
year-old boy named Richard Parker. The sea was harsh, and the food lasted only for seven days. They
collected water occasionally during rainfall however it wasn’t enough to fulfill the thirst of four men.
They fed on a turtle they caught and tried their best to keep alive but by the 18 th day they had no fight left
in them. Dudley suggested that they take lots to pick a person on whom could feed on. However, Brooks
resented the suggestion. Richard by this time was extremely ill from the sea water and insufficient food
and hence played no role in the decision making. This is when the Charles Darwin theory of the survival
of the fittest comes in action. Dudley and Stephens eventually came to a decision that it should be the
young boy who should be killed as he had no fight left in him so he would pass anyway moreover he did
not have any family. They had already decided his fate for him. Brooks went on to resent this suggestion
as well. Dudley and Stephens murmured a prayed cut the cabin boy’s throat. He was too ill to put up any
resistance. All three men fed on the boy’s flesh and drank his blood and were rescued four days later.
Aftereffect
On their return to England Dudley & Stephens were charged with the boy’s murder as according to them
there was no proof of any necessity to justify them in killing the boy, and hence they were guilty of
murder. Brooks served as the witnessed and the other two did not dispute the facts of the case. They
claimed that they had acted out of necessity. They argued that better that one should die than three.
Verdict
They might possibly have been picked up next day by a passing ship; they might possibly not have been
picked up at all; in either case it is obvious that the killing of the boy would have been an unnecessary and
profitless act. Thus, the defense of necessity does not stand a chance here. The defendants were convicted
of murder. The defence of necessity was not allowed. They were sentenced to death but then granted a
pardon by the Crown and served 6 months imprisonment.
Conclusion
Dudley and Stephans killed boy, denying him any chances of survival. Moreover, they chose death on his
behalf. It was wrong to succumb to temptation and then cover it all with the cloak of “necessity.” It may
have been a “custom of the sea” that cannibalism was allowed under such circumstances, but the
defendants were found guilty on the basis that all life is equal – the law expected them to die, rather than
kill another. But the public was sympathetic to the defendants, and their sentences were later commuted
from death to six months imprisonment. The boy was named Richard Parker, as is the tiger in the Man
Booker prize-winning novel Life of Pi.
Questions
1. If Dudley and Stephens had asked Richard in his consent for being the one making the sacrifice,
then would that exonerate from the act of murder? What are your suggestions?
2. Would Richard Parker providing consent make this act morally justified? If not, why?
3. If so, justify as to why consent would make a moral difference.
Arguments to be made on behalf of Dudley and Stephens:

When given a situation where at least one person will die, we should try to save as many human lives as
possible. Therefore, why is it not ethical to kill a man to save three?
After all, as rightly explained by Charles Darwin we live in a world where the fittest of men survive.
If the men had not fed upon the body of the boy, they would probably not have survived to be so picked
up and rescued but would within the four days have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
condition, was likely to have died before them. At the time of the act in question there was no sail in
sight, nor any reasonable prospect of relief.
Originally, their defence was based on “necessity” – that they needed to eat the boy, as they were unlikely
to survive and the boy probably would have died anyway.
What is the utilitarianism in the Dudley and Stephens case?

Dudley and Stephens, in their trials, essentially argued that one person had to be sacrificed for the good of
the majority, coinciding with the theory of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism which aims to maximize the
happiness and wellbeing of the majority of individuals.
Bibliography
1. https://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/QueenvDS.PDF
2. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/regina-v-dudley-and-stephens
3. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/2019/08/24/murder-cannibalism-and-government-
conspiracy/2086170001/

Queens VS Dudley and Stephens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Queens VS Dudley and Stephens

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Queens VS Dudley and Stephens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Queens VS Dudley and Stephens

Arguments to be made on behalf of Dudley and Stephens:

What is the utilitarianism in the Dudley and Stephens case?

You might also like