Regina v Dudley and Stephens 

(1884) 14 QBD 273 DC is a leading English criminal case which

established a precedent throughout the common law world that necessity is not a defence to a
charge of murder. Dudley and Stephens along with Brooks and Parker(victim) were cast away
at sea without weeks of food and water except for some turnips and a turtle. After twenty
days, Dudley and Stephens proposed one person sacrifice himself in order to save the rest.
Brooks dissented while Dudley and Stephens decided to kill Parker since he was the
weakest and youngest. On the 25th of July, seeing no rescue in sight, the two men killed
Parker and the three men feasted on his body. Four days later a vessel rescued them and
Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.
They were rescuied and people could see tat on the ship were bones , The duty Police
Sergeant of the Falmouth Harbour Police[c] was nearby when they were giving explanations for
what happened and informed the Home Office. The Home Office was closed for the weekend.
The Sergeant sought warrants for the men's arrest for murder on the high seas, warrants he
obtained later that day from the mayor.

The three men were held in the station until appearance before magistrates on Monday

The trial opened in Exeter on 3 November 

 Arthur Charles QC led for the prosecution and Arthur J. H. Collins QC for the defence,

Dudley and Stephens pleaded not guilty; Charles opened for the prosecution, outlining the legal
arguments and dismissing the defence of necessity. He also dismissed the insanity defence; it
was clear from the depositions and Dudley's prayer that they were aware of the quality of their
actions

Collings gave arguments such as the hard conditions on the ship and because parker the victim
was ill he would without doubt die first , collings gave the arguments of neccessity

And the prosecutor was changed into an attorney general names james

James submitted that there was no common law authority to support the proposition that
necessity was a defence to murder.

The judge observed that such a principle might be the "legal cloak for unbridled passion and
atrocious crime". They were charged with murder