UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY, NEW

DELHI

CASE ANALYSIS ON –
REGINA V DUDLEY AND STEPHENS
(1884) QBD 273

SUBJECT – LAW OF CRIMES - I

SUBMITTED TO – MS. RITIKA
BHARARA
SUBMITTED BY – MANASI BHARDWAJ (01016503822)
 REGINA
V.

TOM DUDLEY AND EDWIN

STEPHENS (1884) 14 QBD 273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUSTICE (QUEEN’S BENCH
DIVISION) BENCH
CHIEF JUSTICE LORD COLERIDGE, JUSTICE GROVE, JUSTICE DENMAN, LORD POLLOCK, LORD
HUDDLESTON

FACTS

4 Englishmen namely – Ship Captain Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Ned Brooks and a
17 – 18-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker were the crew on board a registered English vessel
– Mignonette. On 5 July 1884, these 4 able-bodied men were cast away in a storm 1600 miles
from the Cape of Good Hope and were compelled to shift to a smaller yacht with their
belongings. The seamen did not have a supply of fresh water or food in this boat except two
1lb tins of turnips, which lasted only 3 days. On the fourth day, they caught a small turtle
upon which they subsisted for a few days.

The last remains of this turtle were consumed on the twelfth day and they had no food for the
next eight days. They had no fresh water to drink and they were living upon whatever rain
water got captured in their oilskin capes. By the eighteenth day, the seamen had spent seven
days without food and five days without water and were nearly 1,000 miles away from land.
It was on this day that Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens went to Ned Brooks and
suggested that one of them be sacrificed to feed the rest, Richard Parker was not consulted it
was understood that the person being referred to here was the cabin boy. Brooks had rejected
this plan.

Then, on 24th July Dudley and Stephens once again floated the idea to Brooks and also
suggested that they draw lots and sacrifice the one whose name comes out. Once again,
Brooks dissented and the boy was not consulted. There was no actual draw that was held,
Dudley and Stephens talked about them having families that they needed to care for and that
it was best that the young boy be sacrificed. Dudley said that if no vessel was spotted by the
next morning, then the boy would be sacrificed.

The next morning, having spotted no vessel, Dudley asked Brooks to get some sleep and
signalled to Stephen to have the boy killed. Brooks once again dissented from this act while
Stephens agreed. The boy, Richard Parker was lying at the bottom of the boat, lifeless and
extremely weak from the famine and drinking seawater. Neither did the boy assent to being
killed nor did he have the energy to resist his killing. Dudley said a prayer asking for
forgiveness and then along with Stephens, went to the boy, told him that his time had come,
and then slit his throat, killing him instantly.

For the next four days, the three men fed on the flesh and blood of the boy. They were
rescued on the fourth day by a passing vessel, alive but in a terrible condition. They were
carried to the port of Falmouth and tried at Exter.

ISSUES

WHETHER KILLING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS MURDER OR NOT?

WHETHER THE KILLING OF RICHARD PARKER COULD BE JUSTIFIED BY NECESSITY OR NOT?

RULE OF LAW

This case is a landmark decision on the doctrine of necessity.

The doctrine of Necessity emerges from two Latin maxims ‘Quod Necessitas Non Habet
Legum’ meaning ‘Necessity knows no law’ and Necessitas Vincit Legum meaning Necessity
overcomes law.

This doctrine recognizes that sometimes, to prevent greater harm, an offence of a smaller
degree has to be committed. Necessity is one of the principles of natural justice where the law
does not incriminate the accused for an act committed under necessity to save the life or
property of oneself or another. For eg, if A breaks a window to get inside a locked building
which was on fire to save a small child who was trapped inside, he will not be held liable for
trespass because he wanted to save a human life, the loss of which would be a greater harm
than breaking into a building.

The Roman Concept of ‘Salus populi suprema lex’ or welfare of the people is the supreme
law that backs the need for the doctrine of necessity so that strict enforcement of law does not
cause greater harm than the committing of the offence itself. This doctrine was incorporated
into English law to defend decisions made in times of crisis, natural calamities and other such
situations where following the law would be a greater harm than breaking it.

However, this doctrine is not absolute, it is applied very rarely and that too when it is proved
beyond reasonable doubt that there indeed was a situation that gave rise to an imminent
necessity and law must be broken to control the damage.

In India, Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code 1 discusses the doctrine of necessity and offers
protection to a person who has committed an act likely to cause harm but without a criminal
intent and to prevent greater harm.

Certain conditions need to be fulfilled to claim the defence of necessity. These conditions
have been derived from precedents laid down by the courts and unfulfillment of either one of
these conditions renders the defence of necessity inadmissible and the person is punished for
the offence he committed.

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 81
 1. IMMEDIATE THREAT
The threat must be imminent and significant and there must not be any possible way
to avoid the risk except by breaking the law. This ensures that this defence is not
misused to get away after committing a crime and that protection is offered only to
those who were facing situations where genuine and immediate threat existed to life,
limb or property.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab & Ors. 2,
one of the perpetrators of the 26/11 attack, Ajmal Kasab claimed in his defence that
he was forced to join the attack because his life and his family were at risk. It was
held that the danger was not so imminent as to force him to participate in such a
crime.
2. PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE
The act committed to prevent the greater harm must be less lethal than the act being
avoided. If the harm caused by breaching the law is greater than what would have
happened in case the harm was not avoided then no defence shall be granted. For
example, if A pushes a small boy off the cliff to protect him from a slap from a grown-
up man, in this case, no defence shall be granted because the reaction was
disproportionate to the imminent harm.
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Sanjay Kumar 3, the accused stole a motorcycle
to take his pregnant wife to the hospital. The court held that the theft was of lesser
gravity than the harm that may have been caused in case the wife did not reach the
hospital on time and therefore the defence of necessity was granted.
3. NO OTHER CHOICE
For this defence to be valid, there must exist no other reasonable and viable option to
prevent the harm that is anticipated. In case the accused had any opportunity to avert
the harm without breaking the law then he shall not be allowed to take the defence of
necessity. In the case of the State of Maharashtra v Dr Praful B Desai 4, the respondent
was a doctor who performed surgery on a patient without taking his consent to save
his life. The Supreme Court held that the defence of necessity could be granted
because the accused had no other choice but to save the patient’s life at that moment.

2
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab, (2012) 9 SCC 1
3
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 7 SCC 547
4
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601
Some landmark cases on the doctrine of necessity

1. Regina V Dudley and Stephens (1884)5

The defendants killed a fellow shipman to satisfy their hunger when they were
stranded in the sea due to a storm. Defence of necessity was not granted to them
because the court held that killing someone for your own needs cannot be counted as
a necessity. They were given life imprisonment but it was later reduced to six months
imprisonment.
2. United States v Holmes (1842)6
The defendant was a crew member of an American vessel carrying 65 passengers. It
hit an iceberg and started sinking and to prevent further damage the crew decided to
throw some passengers overboard. The crew was later tried and it was held that in
such situations, necessity may be considered a defence. However, the court also said
that those who are sacrificed must be fairly selected depending on the group of people
present.
3. Rex v Bourne (1938)7
Here a fourteen-year-old girl became pregnant after being raped by five soldiers. The
defendant who was a gynaecologist performed an abortion on the girl after consulting
it with her parents because he believed that she could die if allowed to give birth. The
defendant was tried for unlawfully procuring a miscarriage but was not found guilty
because he acted in good faith by performing his duty as a gynaecologist.
4. Election Commission of India v Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996)8
In this case, the doctrine of necessity was changed to the doctrine of absolute
necessity and it was held that unless and until a situation of absolute necessity arises
the doctrine cannot be invoked.

5
R v. Dudley, (1884) 14 QBD 273
6
United States v. Holmes, 26 F.Cas. 360 (1842)
7
Rex v. Bourne, (1938) 3 All ER 615
8
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 1996 SC 1810
ARGUMENTS

Sir Arthur Charles QC led the prosecution’s side in this case. He dismissed the defence of
necessity claimed by the accused. He also used Dudley’s deposition where he talked about
praying for forgiveness before committing the act to prove that the two of them were well
aware of the nature of the act they were about to commit and that they knew exactly what the
consequences of slitting a man’s throat would be. Thereby dismissing their claim of insanity.
The prosecution, however, did not try to suppress or belittle the harrowing conditions on the
boat, rather they acknowledged it and suggested that the case be ultimately sent for clemency.
He also called to testify all those who had spoken to the defendants on arriving at Falmouth
before their arrest. Brooks's testimony confirmed the entire event and his distancing from it.

The judge at the Court of Exeter, Baron Huddleston, seemed to have made his decision about
the case already and was not in much of a mood to listen to the defence.

The defence was led by Sir J H Collins QC who provided many arguments in favour of the
necessity defence. He cited various cases in his support. Reliance was laid upon the St.
Christopher case. In this 17th-century case, a crew of 7 English seamen set out on an
overnight voyage from St. Christopher Island but were caught in a storm and lost for 17 days.
Starving, the men decided to cast lots to see who would sacrifice himself to sustain the rest.
The lot fell upon the man who suggested this idea and his body sustained the rest till they
reached the island of St. Martin. The men who survived were tried for homicide however the
judge ultimately pardoned them for their sins were “washed away” by “inevitable necessity”.
This case was, however, rejected because it was not formally recorded in the law reports.

The defence also cited the case of U.S v Holmes 9 in which the U.S. ship William Brown sank
after being hit by an iceberg. The crew of the ship decided to throw about 15 passengers into
frigid seawater to prevent the lifeboat from becoming overloaded and sinking. Seaman
Alexander Holmes was charged with manslaughter on returning to Philadelphia. He was
sentenced to six months in prison and a fine of $20 because the court observed that for the
law of necessity to be invoked, the accused must not owe any duty to the victim. He was
however pardoned by President John Tyler.

While cross-examining Brooks, the defence acknowledged his account and at the same time
highlighted the fact that the conditions on the boat were indeed horrifying and there seemed

9
United States v. Holmes, 26 F.Cas. 360 (1842)
no hope for the situation to get better. This also established the fact that Brooks too had
resorted to the cannibalistic acts by feeding upon the boy along with Dudley and Stephens.

It became clear from Brooks’ testimony that death would have been inevitable for all four
men if they had not resorted to feeding on Parker’s body and that even if he were not killed
Parker would have anyways not made it to the shore because he had become extremely weak
from the famine and would have certainly died first.
JUDGMENT

The court did not grant the defence of necessity to Dudley and Stephens because killing an
innocent man to fulfil one’s hunger cannot justify murder. It was not held justifiable to
sacrifice one life to save the life of another. Parker was the youngest of them all and also the
weakest, the court felt that killing the weakest person for survival, that too without his
consent and in a situation where he was in no position to defend himself or show any
resistance, was murder. It was observed that under no circumstance could murder be a
necessity and therefore necessity as a defence could never be granted against a murder
charge.

The deplorable conditions on the boat were duly acknowledged by the court. It was reiterated
by the judges too that had Dudley and Stephens not fed on Richard Parker’s dead body, they
would have most likely died of starvation before they could be rescued. It was also put on
record that in any case, the victim, Richard Parker would have died before the other men
because his condition was the worst among them all, he had become extremely weak from
fatigue, starvation and dehydration.

It was accepted that the situations faced by the men were indeed difficult and unnerving, and
could potentially break the physical and mental strength of any sane man. Even then, the
bench did not find any reason to grant the defence of necessity on the charge of murder,
neither based on existing legal precedent nor based on ethics and morality. It was observed by
the court that necessity cannot be granted because the act was committed out of grave
temptation. Though law and morality are separate and not all that is immoral is also illegal,
however, absolutely severing law from morality fails the entire purpose of having laws in
place and providing a defence to a crime as heinous as murder would be considered as one
such act.

It was therefore held that the two shipmen – Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens were
guilty of murdering a fellow shipman – Richard Parker and were sentenced to the statutory
death penalty with a recommendation for mercy. However, their sentence was later reduced
to six months imprisonment.
ANALYSIS

The case of R v Dudley and Stephens presents a harrowing narrative of survival, ethical
dilemmas, and the boundaries of the law. It delves into the profound challenges that
individuals can face when their lives are hanging in the balance, pushed to the brink of
desperation. Four men found themselves stranded in the vast expanse of the open sea, trapped
in a lifeboat with no food or water, and no immediate hope of rescue. This dire predicament
initiated a chain of events that would become the subject of a landmark legal case.

As the days turned into weeks, the survivors grappled with a unique set of emotions and
instincts. Extreme hunger, fear, helplessness, and the basic human instinct for survival all
converged, creating an environment of psychological turmoil and moral conflict. In this
desperate struggle for life, the unthinkable decision was made to sacrifice the weakest and
youngest among them, Richard Parker, the cabin boy, and consume his flesh and blood as
sustenance.

When the surviving men, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, were eventually rescued and
returned to England, they were met not with sympathy but with charges of manslaughter. The
legal system demanded answers for their gruesome act, and the men sought the defence of
necessity, arguing that their actions were a dire response to an imminent threat to their lives.
They contended that left with no other choice, they had resorted to cannibalism as the only
means of avoiding certain death before rescue.

However, the court's response to their plea was a resounding rejection of the necessity of
defence in cases of murder. The judges acknowledged the severe circumstances faced by the
shipwreck survivors but drew a distinct line between survival and the preservation of human
life. The court emphatically stated that while the circumstances were indeed dire, such
desperation did not justify taking another human life. The sanctity of human life, they argued,
was a principle that should remain inviolable even in the most extreme situations.

The verdict in R v Dudley and Stephens marked a significant moment in the annals of legal
history, firmly establishing that necessity could not serve as a valid defence for the crime of
murder. While the sentences of death imposed upon the men were ultimately commuted to six
months in prison due to the extraordinary circumstances, the legal precedent was set, and the
case continued to resonate with moral and ethical implications.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the remarkable depths the human mind can reach
when confronted with life-threatening situations. It underscores the power of the survival
instinct and the moral complexities that arise when individuals face choices that challenge the
very essence of humanity. The narrative raises profound questions about the human capacity
for adaptation and rationalization under extreme stress, and it invites scrutiny of the ethical
boundaries that society upholds.

At its core, R v Dudley and Stephens encapsulates the enduring tension between the
preservation of life and the sanctity of human life. It forces us to confront the ethical dilemma
of whether extreme circumstances can ever justify the taking of a life to save one's own. This
enduring debate continues to be discussed and debated in legal, ethical, and psychological
contexts, reminding us of the enduring impact of this tragic and thought-provoking case. The
rejection of the necessity defence firmly asserts that the sanctity of human life remains
paramount, even when confronted with the most extreme and desperate of circumstances.