The Case of the

Speluncean Explorers
 The Defendants are members of the
‘Speluncean Society’, a cave-exploring
organisation.
In May 4299, while exploring a
limestone cavern, a landslide
occurred, trapping the four inside

rt y t o save
a re s cue pa e ns ive.
en t e x p
iet y HQ s ing and
The S o c
a s c h all e n g
it h s everal
hich w w such
em , w w e re faced in o n e
th r kmen rt, and
w o e ffo
Th e
rin g t heir e re k illed.
an ds lides du w o rk men w
l er, 10
disast

ec am e empty,
T r ea s u ry soon b islative
o cie ty d a le g
The S n dr a ising an wards
u bli c fu n c e s to
but p ed their fina
le n is h
grant rep s cu e m ission
the re

CJ Truepenny
 w it h the
d
e st a blishe t heir
w as y of
io co ntact h e 2 0 th da d th at the
Rad
da n ts on t re informe days
Defen ey w e m or e
e nt , and th ld ta ke 10
entrap
m
ra tio n wou
e ope
rescu

CJ Truepenny

Medical experts
communicated that
the lack of nutrition
would probably result
in their starvation
 In response to this ultimatum, one of the
Defendants, Roger Whetmore asked if
they were likely to survive if they
consumed the flesh of one of the persons
trapped – which the doctors reluctantly
confirmed

Whetmore further sought advice on how the

Defendants could narrow down which
explorer to consume for their survival – from
a priest, a judge, a minister – none of whom
were willing to advise them

CJ Truepenny

When the Defendants received no

guidance on their predicament, the
rescue team suddenly lost radio
contact with them
 The Defendants were rescued on the
32nd days after they were trapped,
and immediately underwent medical
and psychological checkups

It was discovered that Whetmore had been

killed and eaten by the Defendants.
The survivors testified that Whetmore
originally conceived the plan of cannabilism,
by offering a pair of dice to deduce the victim

However, right before the dice are cast,

Whetmore apparently expressed his hesitation
towards the plan, and suggested waiting a
week before embarking upon the horrifying act

CJ Truepenny
The others refused to accept his withdrawal,
charging him with a breach of faith
When it was his turn to throw the dice, one of
the defendants threw for him, and Whetmore
expressed no objections

CJ Truepenny
The outcome of the dice resulted in
Whetmore being picked, who was killed
and eaten in a method the survivors
considered to be fair

After they testified, the Defendants were charged

with the murder of Whetmore under the NCSA
Section 12-A, stating
“Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall
be punished by death”
(with no exception applicable)
 The Jury made a special verdict
concluding that the defendants were guilty
– and upon this verdict the trial court judge
convicted the defendants

The sentence as per Newgarth statute was

death by hanging, but the Trial judge and jury
members petitioned the Chief Executive to
commute the sentence of the survivors to
imprisonment for 6 months rather than a death
penalty

CJ Truepenny

I too, suggest the route of Executive

Clemency, through a joint petition from this
Court - it is the Executive's job to be
merciful and a retrial would incur a
significant expense!
 's A p p eal to
epenny n
w i th C J I T r u
a t , i f I was i
h
I disag
ree
! I d o think t d o ned the
iv e a r
the Ex
ecut ld have p
ti v e I w o u
e n o u gh...
ecu d
the Ex h av e suffere
ey
men, th

Justice Keen

As a private citizen, I don't agree with the death penalty, but as a

member of the judiciary, I am compelled to plainly apply the law -
which is seperate from what 'justice' and 'morality' may comprise of

Personal views are to be kept aside!

The statute is very clear, and our job is to
simply apply the law - the judiciary must
convict the Defendants!

CJ Truepenny
 To rely on Executive Clemency to save the
Defendants is risky, and they could refuse
the pardon – as I have heard from my wife’s
niece – who is a reliable source – that Chief
Executive will not reduce the sentence the
judiciary holds them as being guilty!

Justice Handy
It is unfair to deem public
knowledge as half-truths and
hearsay and presume that legal
opinions prevent any errors,
exclude emotional and personal
factors, and guarantee that all the
forms of the law will be observed
We deceive ourselves into thinking that the jury's
decisions and deliberations are legally arrived at if the
special verdict had not been released, the case would
have been decided by the jury which is the general
public!
 I disagree with CJI Truepenny -
the law does not compel the
conclusion of murder, but rather
declares the innocence of the
Defendants

Justice Foster
The purpose of the statute is
deterrence from murder and
conviction in this exceptional case
does not serve that - much like
how conviction in the killing of
another for self defence!

The court cannot invent the self-defence exception!

It must wait for the legislature to enact it. This
case cannot be compared with self-defence, since
Whetmore's life was not a threat to the Defendants!

Justice Keen
 Justice Foster is very hodgepodge - they
don't seem to like statutes!
They forget that judges cannot simply 'fill
gaps' or remake statutes as per their wishes!
The Defendants wilfully killed Whetmore and
the conviction must be respected, ignoring
Justice Keen individual ideas of justice

The usual application of the laws of

Newgarth cannot apply to this case -
which occurred in a 'state of nature' -
which demanded the sacrifice of one
for the survival of the rest.
Justice Foster

The co-existence of the men was

impossible, and a new legal order
meant the irrelevance of preceding
laws and judicial precedent...
 Justice Foster's logic of 'state of nature' is
absurd - because it hierarchises the freedom
to contract as superior to the right to life!
When Whetmore decided to resign from the
dice throwing, his change of mind was simply
rejected under this new rule!

Justice Tatting

How can hunger be a reasonable ground for murder?

In Commonwealth v Valjean starvation did not justify
theft loaf of bread or homicide!

This case is quite challenging for me... I find myself also thinking
that the truly purposive interpretation of this exceptionally
disturbing case, creates the need for retribution and rehabilitation
of the Defendants
 Human life not an absolute value – ten
workmen were killed in the landslide
during the rescue operation to save
five men. Why can't one man be
sacrificed to save four lives?

Justice Foster
I cannot agree with Justice Foster's pure
rationalisation and I am torn between
feeling sympathetic and repelled by the
acts of the defendants. There are counter-
balancing opinions on either side...

Justice Tatting

his to rical
l ac tivism a t u s that
icia g h
re e w ith jud u s e o f it tau garth
I disa g r b e c a in N e w
e of c ivil wa le g is lature
instan
c
p re m acy of s pe ct it!
su re
there i
s
d w e must
a n
Justice Keen
There is a need to preserve an accord between
us and the public and this case has stirred a
massive response. 90% of the public expressed
that the survivors should be pardoned...

Justice Handy
All the judges have used legalisms to
obscure common sense and practical
wisdom, sentencing the men to death
serves no end - they have suffered more
torment and humiliation than we will in
our entire lives

A hard decision is not a popular one and

there is a moral value by holding people
responsible towards the law!
Justice Keen
 In conclusion, I have observed that all
judges other than Justice Keen agree
to set aside convictions, and only
differ on who’s role it is to determine
such!

Justice Handy ju d gment

a
lm ed to pass tory of
er w he t he h is
m orally ov st time in
I am t oo
nd in the fir
this case.
m
case, a raw fro
in this urt, I w ith d
this co

Justice Tatting
Myself and Justice Keen affirm the
conviction and Justice Foster and Justice
Handy set aside the conviction. Since the
Supreme Court is evenly divided, the
conviction of the Court of General Instances
is affirmed. The Public Executioner will
sentence the Defendants on 2 April 4300 at
CJ Truepenny 6:00 am.