Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Defense of Necessity
The Defense of Necessity
The Defense of Necessity
Introduction
The defence of necessity is only available for the defendant who has committed a
crime to avoid a greater evil. This paper will outline the rationale through R v
Dudley & Stephens and explain why this defence is only available in exceptional
circumstances. In addition, the rationale will be extended as a template, and
tested against a set of circumstances in a modern day situation.
1
Tracey Steel ICT Project
eager for his share of the boy’s flesh and blood. The three surviving crew
members were rescued four days after
the death of Parker. Tom Dudley and
Edwin Stephens were charged with
murder. The men claimed the defence
of necessity against this charge and
argued that this practice was
commonplace under such extreme
circumstances.
6
Photograph of lifeboat exhibited at Falmouth
drinking Sea
Mignonette
Mignonette
Discussed
intensified
In coma
Opened
set sail
Rescue
Caught
turnips
Debate
Parker
Parker
water
killed
turtle
drink
sank
food
No
No
Cannibalism
Cannibalism was a socially accepted
practice among seamen faced with
starvation and death7, as depicted by
the painting by Theodore Gericault,
The Raft of Medusa, inspired by the
cannibalism that took place after the
French naval frigate; Medusa8 was
abandoned by her crew in 1816.
Similarly, the whale ship Essex, was
destroyed and sank after a whale
attack in 1821. The surviving crew
were forced to eat their dead and
9
later drew lots in order to survive. The The Raft of Medusa
first mate, Owen Chase, later wrote detailed manuscripts of the tragedy10, which
were passed by Chase’s son, to another young whaler, Herman Melville. Melville
was so inspired by the tale he produced his greatest work, Moby Dick.11
2
Tracey Steel ICT Project
The Verdict
The defence of necessity is only available for the defendant who has committed a
crime to avoid a greater evil, and adopts the rationale that:
The court in Dudley & Stephens discussed the matter at length and concluded
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, and concluded
that:
The defendants were sentenced to death. However, Queen Victoria, utilised her
Royal Prerogative to spare the lives of these men, and sentenced them to a six
months in prison. This resolved the case to suit all perspectives. The court was
perceived as strictly upholding the law, which also reinforced the Christian
principles on which the law is based. In addition, the numerous sympathisers of
Dudley and Stephens were also pacified to avoid social unrest, when the
monarch showed understanding and leniency towards the crew of the Mignonette
because of the dreadful mental, emotional and physical dilemmas they had faced
during their ordeal at sea.
A Modern Dilemma
Despite the rationale outlining the essence of the defence, courts have
historically been reluctant to recognise necessity as legal justification for
committing murder, as illustrated above, however, in Re A (2000), the court of
appeal held that the termination of the life of a conjoined twin would not amount
to murder on the grounds of necessity, given that, without this sacrifice, the life of
the stronger twin could not be saved. In principle it is difficult to see why this
should not be equally correct in other homicide situations.14 For example, an
incident occurred on a climbing expedition to the Peruvian Andes, which not only
3
Tracey Steel ICT Project
sparked furious debate and criticism from the mountaineering community, but
also questioned whether the defence of necessity could have been depended
upon given a varying outcome.
In 1985, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates climbed the 4,500ft West Face of
21,000ft Siula Grande, one of the most formidable mountains of the Peruvian
Andes, which had so far, defeated all attempts to the summit. Simpson and
Yates reached the peak successfully, but disaster struck on their descent at
19,000ft, when after a slow
start, Joe fell and broke his
leg. Both men understood
the life threatening
implications of the injury, but
their friendship was such
that Yates decided to do his
best to get Simpson home.
The team continued the
difficult decent despite Joe’s
agony. Yates planned to
abseiled his wounded friend
down the mountain. Simon
attached a rope to Joe and
lowered him down the
16
Siula Grande
glazier 300 foot at a time. Each decent involved severe agony for Joe, as he was
lowered as swiftly as possible due to the time constraints dictated to the men
by the ruthless and relentlessly brutal weather conditions. As soon as the rope
was extended to its full capacity, Joe secured his footing on his good leg, leaving
the rope slack and indicating his safety, Yates would descend to meet his
companion and start the process again. Things went well until Joe slid over an
incline which left him hanging in mid air. Above him, Simon had no idea what had
happened, and suspected that Joe’s injuries were more
severe than initially considered, and he thought that
Joe may have become unconscious with the pain, or
worse, was dead. Neither man could communicate with
the other, and the weather changed for the worse.
Suffering from frostbite in four fingers and one thumb,
Simon held the rope which held his friend for many
hours through a harsh snow storm. After much
deliberation Simon realised that he had to act or both
men would die, and he cut the rope. Joe plummeted
into the unknown below, landing on a ledge in a
massive crevasse. Simon climbed down to find his
friend, but Joe was hidden in the abyss. Simon was
4
Tracey Steel ICT Project
forced to abandon all hope and continued his torturous descent to base camp
alone. Miraculously, and in spite of the odds, Joe Simpson found a way out of
the crevasse and crawled back to based camp just hours before the rest of the
group had planned to leave. Joe has made a full recovery.
Conclusion
Some would argue that there was no decision to be made; with the rope
representing the powerful symbol of trust and friendship, cutting it should never
have been an option. Others consider the act a simple matter of survival,
something that Yates was forced to do under extreme circumstances.17A
decision, given the same circumstances, that Simpson himself would have made.
Fortunately, both men survived the ordeal and remain friends, however, if Simon
had returned from Peru without his companion, and he had documented an
accurate account of the events that took place, what would his fate have been?
5
Tracey Steel ICT Project
1
Full text of judgment www.justis.com/data-coverage/iclr-bqb14040.aspx
2
Mallin, M. G. (1967), "In warm blood: Some historical and procedural aspects of Regina v. Dudley and
Stephens", University of Chicago Law Review 34: 387–407, doi:10.2307/1598938
3
Simpson, A. W. B. (1984), Cannibalism and the Common Law: The Story of the Tragic Last Voyage of the
Mignonette and the Strange Legal Proceedings to Which It Gave Rise, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 50–53
4
Protective sides of the yacht, that prevent flooding and sinking
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignonette_%28yacht%29
6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignonette_%28yacht%29
7
Essex 1820 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_(whaleship);
8
The Raft of Medusa 1818 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raft_of_the_Medusa
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_of_Medusa
10
Narrative of the Most Extra-Ordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whaleship Essex, published 1821.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A671492
11
The Wreck of the Whaleship Essex http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A671492
12
Geary, R. (2002). Understanding Criminal Law. London:Cavendish. pp114-115
13
R v. Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC.
14
Greary, R. (2002). Understanding Criminal Law. London:Cavendish. pp114-115
15
Simpson, J. (1997). Touching the Void. London:Vintage.
16
Creative commons search http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakegordon/4433877
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakegordon/4433905/in/set-111651/
17
Simpson, J. (1997). Touching the Void. London:Vintage.