Authored By: Julia Wieczorek
University of East Anglia
Introduction:
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) is a landmark case in English Criminal law which concerns the defence of necessity to murder.[1] This case arose after the yacht Mignonette sank in the South Atlantic, leaving four men stranded with no food or water. Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, after twenty days at sea, killed the weakest survivor, Richard Parker, and consumed him due to the belief that this was the only way to preserve their own lives. They were rescued four days later. The Queen’s Bench Division was therefore required to determine if necessity can justify the intentional killing of an innocent person to preserve one’s life. The court held that it could not, and it was established that necessity is not a defence to murder. This therefore places focus on criminal liability and its limits, highlighting tension between established legal principles and morality.
Facts of the case:
On 5th July 1884, the English yacht Mignonette sank due to a storm approximately 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. Four members of the crew, Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Brooks, and the seventeen-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker escaped in an open lifeboat with only two tins of turnips and no fresh water.[2] The men barely survived on this, resulting on them hunting a small turtle and rainwater before exhausting all supplies.On the eighteenth day, Dudley and Stephens, the defendants, suggested sacrificing one person to save the others. Brooks, refused to agree and Parker was not consulted with . Dudley proposed drawing lots, but this was not done. By the twentieth day, Parker, the victim, was weakened, and Dudley with Stephens’ approval, cut Parker’s throat and killed him. The three remaining men consumed Parker’s body and blood for four days, until they were rescued.
What are the legal issues?
The primary issue in this case before the court was whether the defence of necessity was available to the defendants who intentionally killed an innocent person in order the preserve their own lives. The court further had hold into consideration the extreme circumstances which they went through, such as starvation and the absence of a reasonable prospect of a rescue, and if this can provide a lawful justification or excuse for the killing. Additionally, the court also had to consider whether the defendant’s intention to save their own lives affected their criminal liability for murder.
Arguments presented:
Defendant’s arguments:
Dudley and Stephens argued that the act of them killing was done under the pressure of necessity. They believed that killing Richard Parker was the only means of preserving their own lives. They contended that the killing did not hold malicious and pure intent, and instead their purpose was self-preservation. The defence relied on common law doctrine of necessity, referring to authorities including Stephen’s History of the Criminal Law, Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law, The United States v Holmes,[3] and the writing of Lord Bacon.[4] The defence did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction on the merits, but challenged the jurisdiction over the offence committed on high seas, which was established by the prosecution that the Mignonette was a registered English vessel satisfying s267 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854.
The Crowns arguments:
The Crown argued that necessity is not a recognised defence to murder unless the killing has occurred due to lawful self-defence against an unlawful threat. As Richard Parker did not pose danger to the defendants, his killing therefore could not be justified legally. The crown relied on common law principles of intentional killing of an innocent person constituting murder. The Crown distinguished the authorities which the defendant’s relied upon, arguing the United States v Holmes was not binding in English law, and that Lord Bacon’s example of shipwrecked men sharing a plank did not represent. the common law.[5] They argued that recognising the defence of necessity in this case would create an uncertain and dangerous precedent, as this would allow individuals to decide whose life is more valuable in similar situations. The Crown further argued that the English courts had the jurisdiction to hear the case, as the defendants were English seamen, who were serving on an English vessel.
Court’s reasoning and analysis:
There is not much statutory interpretation in this case, as the Parliament had not legislated on necessity as a defence to murder, therefore this means this case is pure common law question. The statute which does matter here is s267 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, which is relevant to establishing the jurisdiction, that the English courts could try the two English seamen for something that happened on the high sea.[6] As there are no statutes to rely on, the court had to use old text and case law which would be able to be used thus lacking application of rules.
The court focused on the case of, in support of the defence’s position, United States v Holmes (1842), where a crew member was convicted for throwing passengers overboard from an overloaded lifeboat. The court however, rejected this. They rejected this on the basis that the reasoning is “strange ground” and that it is not satisfactory. The court found that there was no case law to support the defence of necessity to murder.
The defence’s central argument was that the extreme starvation created necessity to excuse the murder of Parker. This was rejected. The court rejected each authority the defence presented. Lord Bacon’s example was dismissed due to it not being law if taken to mean “a man may save his life by killing… an innocent and unoffending neighbour”.[7] Further, the court concluded that in Stephens’ Digest and History, the language was vague, and that it did not cover this case of necessity.[8] The court did however accept the Crown’s position, that there was no principled way to distinguish this particular case from murder. They held that the boy was not a threat, and that he had not consented, and that there is no legal groundwork to state that one’s life is more worth than another due to values such as strength and dependants.
The court aimed to balance the individual’s interest in self-preservation against the protection of innocent life. The court held that when in survival, this cannot justify the taking of an innocent life regardless of the circumstances. The court did place focus on holding sympathy for the men, stating they were “subject to terrible temptation”. However, this could not bend the law in itself. The death sentence was formally passed and then commuted to six months.
The decision:
The court held that the special verdict established was that Mignonette was registered as an English vessel, which satisfies the s267 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854.[9] The court further ruled that necessity is not a defence to murder, and that the facts found, such as Dudley killing Parker, with Stephens’ approval to save their lives, did amount to murder with no available defence.[10] An appeal was not applicable due to a special verdict being held. The jury found the facts and referred questions to the Queen’s Bench Division, which found those facts disclosed murder.[11] The ratio decidendi held was that necessity is not a defence to murder, even when facing extreme circumstance such as starvation. This means that the law does not permit killing intentionally to preserve life.[12] The court stated that there is no legal basis for weighing one life against another, and the court drew a fine line between self-defence, and necessity.
Critical Analysis:
The clarity this case brought to an area of law which was previously rather vague is a clear strength. Before Dudley and Stephens, it was unclear whether necessity could excuse murder. This therefore established the clear principle that necessity cannot be used as a defence for the intentional killing, no matter the desperate circumstances.[13] This sets groundwork which is easy to apply and hard to manipulate for future cases, which is significant as it avoids a mere subjective, and case-by-case approach to cases as such.
Some could argue that the alternative approach of a partial defence of necessity could have been used, reducing the murder to manslaughter. Collins attempted to raise this, however, Lord Coleridge shut this down.[14] Even so, this case demonstrates that the English law priorities clear precedent over case-specific moral calculations.
This case further has attracted academic criticism. As Glanville Williams argued, necessity should instead operate a scale of values. To decide if an act can be justified, its compared based on competing harms or interests, and allows the lesser harm to prevent the greater.[15] With this view, values such as life, freedom, and moral duty should be balanced based on their relative importance, rather than treated just based off context. However, this approach could be considered dangerous. This would invite courts to rank human life based on age and strength, which is what Lord Coleridge was trying to avoid. Joshua Dressler argued that Williams’ scale of values argument does not focus on the more fundamental issue of the case.[16] He argued regardless of circumstances and values as such, this would lead to courts framing necessity as an excuse for murder. Leading to issues such as a lack of focus on the act itself and the outcome, but the way the court reasoned its way there.
Ultimately, the strict rule in this case appears justified, the danger of permitting courts to rank a person’s life against another seems to outweigh the costs of injustice in cases such as this. The ratio decidendi in this case sacrifices flexibility in the law for certainty, while this may produce harsh outcomes, this protects against the court making such decisions on whose life is worth more.
Conclusion:
Overall, R v Dudley and Stephens helped settle the debate of whether necessity can be used as a defence for the intentional killing of an innocent person. The court held that it could not, as established under the jurisdiction s267 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854. The court held that necessity cannot excuse or justify murder after having found no authority which could have supported the defence. The key principle established in this case is still applied today, which is survival instinct, however extreme, cannot justify taking another life, especially if the person poses no threat. In effect, the law refuses to allow one person’s life to be weighed against another’s regardless of the circumstances.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASES:
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
United States v Holmes (1842) 26 F Cas 360 (CCD Pa 1842)
LEGISLATION:
Merchant Shipping Act 1854
Dressler J, ‘Reflections on Dudley and Stephens and Killing the Innocent: Taking a Wrong Conceptual Path’ in Baker DJ and Horder J (eds), The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams (Cambridge University Press 2013)
Williams G, ‘The Defence of Necessity’ (1953) 6 CLP 216
Williams G, ‘Necessity’ [1978] Crim LR 128
[1][1] R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
[2] Ibid.
[3] The United States v Holmes (1842) 26 F Cas 360 (CCD Pa 1842)
[4] R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid 288.
[11]R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, 287–288 (Lord Coleridge CJ).
[12] Ibid 286-287.
[13] R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, 287–288 (Lord Coleridge CJ).
[14] R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, 273.
[15] Glanville Williams [1978] Crim LR 128.
[16] Dressler J, ‘Reflections on Dudley and Stephens and Killing the Innocent: Taking a Wrong Conceptual Path’ in Baker DJ and Horder J (eds), The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams (Cambridge University Press 2013)
