R. v. Dudley and Stephens: Information from Answers.com
- ️Wed Jul 01 2015
R. v. Dudley and Stephens
| R. v. Dudley and Stephens | |
| Queen's Bench Division |
|
| Full case name | Her Majesty The Queen v. Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens |
| Date decided | 1884 |
| Citations | [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC |
| Judges sitting | Lord Coleridge |
| Case history | |
|---|---|
| Prior actions: | |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| Lord Coleridge |
R. v. Dudley and Stephens ([1884] 14 QBD 273 DC) is a leading English criminal case famous for its establishing the precedent on the use of 'necessity' as a criminal defence, and for its use of the 'slippery slope' argument in formulating its holding.
Facts of the case
The English yacht Mignonette set sail for Sydney, Australia from Southampton, England on May 19, 1884 with a crew of four. The crew consisted of Tom Dudley, the captain; Edwin Stephens; Edmund Brooks; and Richard Parker, the cabin boy.
On July 5, the yacht sank due to bad weather off the Cape of Good Hope stranding the entire crew of four on a single 13-foot lifeboat. For twelve days they survived off two tins of turnips that the Captain recovered prior to leaving the ship and whatever they could catch.
After eight days without food or water, Dudley proposed that Richard Parker be sacrificed to feed the others. Richard Parker, at this point of time, due to hunger and drinking sea-water, was immobile and possibly unconscious. Brooks did not consent, and no one asked Parker. Dudley proposed that if there were no vessel in sight by the next day, the boy should be killed. On 25 July, with no vessel in sight, Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, said a prayer and slit the boy's throat, killing him.
Despite Brooks' dissent, all of the survivors fed on the body for the next four days until they were picked up by a German boat. The remaining crew were brought to Falmouth where Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.
Ruling
The initial trial in the city of Exeter was in front of a sympathetic jury. Although cannibalism was not an accepted practice at the time, the seafaring community was receptive to the unique perils of being cast away at sea. While not common practice, it was understood amongst the naval community that in a situation where lives were to be sacrificed, the cabin boy should be the one chosen as they generally had no family or dependants. Prior to coming to trial, Dudley thought that this was part of the law and that he would not be charged with murder. Even Richard Parker's family testified that the defendants were probably justified in their actions.
In its verdict, the jury stated that they found all the facts of the prosecution's case to be accurate, but that they were unsure whether the circumstances would constitute legal homicide. The question was sent to London for review.
At the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division, the panel of judges found that there was insufficient 'necessity' for the killing. The judges argued that allowing an exception to murder for certain perilous circumstances would set a dangerous precedent for the future, as courts could interpret the decision to acquit other forms of killing. The presiding justice, Lord Coleridge, went as far as to call Dudley and Stephens' actions inconsistent with the morals of civilized societies, pointing out the virtues of Greco-Roman literature and the Biblical story of Jesus. Other quotes include:
- To preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it. [...] It is not correct, therefore, to say that there is any absolute or unqualified necessity to preserve one's life.
Brooks was acquitted of any involvement, but Dudley and Stephens were found guilty and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to six months' imprisonment by Queen Victoria.
Today, the case is commonly studied and debated by law students in common law countries.
Divisional Court bench
- Lord Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice
- Mr Justice Grove
- Mr Justice Denman
- Baron Pollock
- Baron Huddleston
See also
- Plank of Carneades
- Lifeboat sketch for a possible contemporary cultural reference to this case from Monty Python's Flying Circus.
- The Custom of the Sea
- The Case of the Speluncean Explorers for a famous hypothetical case, similar in spirit and analyzed under various legal approaches
Bibliography
- Hanson, N. (2000). The Custom of the Sea: The Story that Changed British Law. Corgi. ISBN 0-552-14760-5.
- Simpson, A. W. B. (1994). Cannibalism and the Common Law: A Victorian Yachting Tragedy. London and Rio Grande, Ohio: Hambledon Press. ISBN 1-85285-200-3.
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)