R. v. Dudley and Stephens
From Free net encyclopedia
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens ([1884] 14 QBD 273 DC) is a leading English criminal case famous for its precedence in establishing the use of 'necessity' as a criminal defense, and for its use of the 'slippery slope' argument in formulating its holding.
Contents |
Facts of the case
The English yacht Mignonette set sail for Sydney, Australia from Southampton, England on May 19th, 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 5th the yacht sank due to bad weather off of Cape of Good Hope stranding the entire crew of 4 on a single 13-foot lifeboat. For twelve days they survived off of two tins of turnips that the boy had saved 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 this proposal was not put towards Parker. Dudley proposed that if there were no vessel in sight by the next day the boy should be killed. On the 25th of July, being no vessel approaching, Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, said a prayer, went to the boy, and killed him.
Despite Brook's dissent, all of the survivors fed on the body for the next four days until they were picked up by a German bark. The remaining crew were brought to Falmouth where they 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. 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. 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 such as the United Kingdom and United States.
The book: The Custom of the Sea by Neil Hanson, is about the incident and the subsequent legal case.
References
- Cannibalism and the Common Law by A. W. Brian Simpson, Hambledon Press, London and Rio Grande, Ohio, (1994). The author is Professor of Law at the University of Michigan.