Author: Reyyan Mansoor, Middlesex University, Dubai
To the Point
Captain Dudley and First Mate Stephens were put on trial for the murder of cabin boy Richard Parker, who was killed and then eaten by the crew members including one other, Brooks. They were stranded at sea after a storm and were surviving on barely any food or water for 20 days before the Captain proposed the idea of killing the cabin boy who was already sick from drinking sea water and barely eating. Up until then, they had only caught a small turtle and had eaten that for a few days.
Brooks was against the idea stating that if they were to die, they would all die, refusing to kill the boy while Stephens agreed. After some persuading Dudley convinced Stephens to join him in killing the cabin boy if no ship appeared within the next few days. Brooks still refused and was asked to move away from the scene while the two engaged in an act they deemed was out of necessity. They were rescued four days later and taken to England where they confessed the act they committed and were taken into custody. Dudley and Stephens argued that they had to kill the boy in order to survive as due to illness, he would have died regardless.
Legal Jargon
The main legal issue is whether the murder of the boy could be considered a necessity under extreme conditions. The court examined various factors including the circumstances the crew were under as well as using necessity as a defense. The case did not follow the established criteria of necessity, and was examined thoroughly with the statement affirmed that the taking of one’s life was still considered a crime unless committed in self-defense.
The argument of self-defense was soon withdrawn as the act was committed against a person who was unable to defend himself or consent to his own killing. In other words, it was made against a helpless boy who may have been in delirium, owing to the sea water he was drinking.
The court ruled that all human life holds value and that no one was able to judge the value of human life by themselves. In this case, Dudley had no right to make a decision on Parker’s life even if their own survival was not guaranteed.
The Proof
The jury agreed on the undisputed facts that the crew were stranded on a boat with barely any food and had to survive for over two weeks without any signs of rescue. They, however, were unable to deliver the final verdict of ‘guilty or not guilty’ as they instead opted to deliver a special verdict where a bench of judges would make the final decision.
The court as well as the public were divided on the final decision, citing the desperation of the crew to survive and pointed to holding off killing the boy if no help arrived by the 20th day.
Initially the court ruled that both Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens were found guilty of murder and sentenced both men to death for the crime of murder of Richard Parker. However, owing to public sympathy the sentence was later changed to six months in prison. This case led to the establishment of the principle – necessity does not constitute murder.
Abstract
R v Dudley and Stephens is an English landmark case which established the principle, ‘Necessity does not act as a defense to murder’. The court tried Captain Thomas Dudley and First Mate Edward Stephens for the murder of Richard Parker, the cabin boy. The three, along with one other, Brooks were stranded at sea after a storm for over 3 weeks. By the time the crew were rescued, Richard Parker had been murdered and cannibalized by the three other crew mates, with Dudley and Stephens being the ones who murdered the boy. The pair were tried and found guilty of murder and sentenced by the court to death, which was later changed to six months in prison.
Case Law
The principle is used today in regards to understanding the meaning of necessity as a defense for a crime. Some factors to consider were whether the accused was under any other threat of harm or duress, or whether they themself instigated the situation or not, among other factors.
In R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the accused, Martin, who was originally convicted of dangerous driving while he was disqualified from doing so. He had driven his stepson to work because his wife threatened to take her own life if he did not do so, and he believed that she would act upon her threat. The court then affirmed that the defendant was under duress, and committed the act in fear that his wife would commit suicide if he did not. This satisfied the condition for necessity, quashing the original conviction.
In R v Pommell [1995], the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the defendant, Pommell, who was originally convicted after being found guilty of possessing a prohibited weapon. The defendant intended to hand in the weapon to the relevant authorities the next day after taking it from an individual who had the intention of using it for violent purposes. Originally, he was convicted, and then later applied to the Court of Appeal where it was ruled that the defense of duress of circumstances was applicable, citing that the act was committed to neutralise any harmful or illegal acts to a person or persons of the public.
Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147, the court distinguished the principle used in Dudley and Stephens when considering the value of life of the children. The case followed the surgical separation of the twins who were conjoined at the spine. If they went through with the surgery, the weaker twin would die and the stronger would survive. The court ruled to have the twins separated in order to save the stronger twin, even if it meant that the other would die, citing medical necessity.
Conclusion
The landmark cases R v Dudley and Stephens has established a principle vital to criminal law – necessity does not act as a defense to murder. In other words, necessity is not a valid defense for taking the life of another. The court looked at the situational conditions faced by the seamen including the condition of the cabin boy, Parker, who was extremely weakened. Ultimately, the court found Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder sentencing the pair to death. Their sentence was later changed to six months in prison due to public sympathy. The fourth seaman, Brooks, refused to participate in the crime but did consume the body along with the other two crewmen.
The 5 judge panel looked at the meaning of necessity, in great detail, and the concept of necessity as a defense in that specific context. They mentioned in their ruling that the act of murder was still a crime and was not committed in self-defense. The boy did not fight back owing to his state and did not consent to his own killing.
The court rejected the claim that killing the boy was their only means of survival citing that they could not put value on human life, especially on another’s life even out of desperation.
FAQ’s
1. What was established in R v Dudley and Stephens?
R v Dudley (1884) is an English landmark case which established the principle necessity does not act as a defense to murder.
2. Who were the crew members?
The crew members were Captain Thomas Dudley, First Mate Edward Stephens, seaman Brooks and the youngest of the four, cabin boy Richard Parker.
3. What were the legal issues dealt with in the case?
IThe main legal issue was whether necessity could be seen as a clause to the defense of murder under extreme circumstances.
