Law Atlas

How The Law Decides
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme
Landmark Case

R v Dudley and Stephens

Criminal Law and Procedure

R v Dudley and Stephens, decided by the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court in 1884, is the leading English authority that necessity is no defense to a charge of murder. The crew of the yacht Mignonette, adrift in a lifeboat after their ship sank, killed and ate the weakest member of their party, a seventeen year old cabin boy named Richard Parker, after roughly three weeks without food and eight days without water; the survivors were rescued and, on returning to England, prosecuted for murder rather than treated as having acted from unavoidable necessity, which was the custom among some sailors of the period. The court, in a specially constituted five judge panel led by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, held that no necessity, however extreme, justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent person to preserve one's own life, rejecting the argument that Dudley and Stephens had simply chosen who would die when someone had to. Both men were convicted of murder and sentenced to death, though the sentence was commuted by the Crown to six months' imprisonment, an outcome widely read as the legal system stating an absolute principle while quietly tempering its human cost.

Facts
Decision Year
1884 1
Decision Date
1884-12-04 1
Holding
Necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder, even where the killing was to preserve the lives of the survivors of a shipwreck by cannibalism; Dudley and Stephens were convicted of murder and sentenced to the statutory death penalty with a recommendation for mercy, later commuted by the Home Secretary to six months' imprisonment. 1
Current Status
Controlling precedent in English and Commonwealth criminal law since 1884; has not been overruled. 1
Case Status
Case Status (category)
Final / Not Overruled 1
Case Status (category)
Overruled (in whole or part) 1
Case Status (category)
Controlling Precedent 1
FAQs

What did R v Dudley and Stephens decide about necessity?

Necessity is not a defence to murder, even in a shipwreck.

Decided by the Queen's Bench Division in 1884 under Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, the case held that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder, even where the killing was to preserve the lives of shipwreck survivors by cannibalism. No necessity, however extreme, justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent person to preserve one's own life.

What happened to Dudley and Stephens after their conviction?

Sentenced to death, then commuted to six months' imprisonment.

Both men were convicted of murder and sentenced to death with a recommendation for mercy. The sentence was commuted to six months' imprisonment.
Connections

Associated With

Mens Rea, Doctrines

R v Dudley and Stephens held that extreme necessity is no defense to an intentional killing, a foundational limit on excusing a culpable mental state that mens rea doctrine otherwise requires the prosecution to prove.

Authored By

Source R v Dudley and Stephens (Wikipedia)

Decided By

Source R v Dudley and Stephens (Wikipedia)

In Legal System

Source An Introduction to Comparative LawKonrad Zweigert and Hein Koetz; English translation by Tony Weir
In the Other Atlases

Found In

Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.

Source Wikidata: R v Dudley and Stephens
Sources
1. R v Dudley and Stephens (Wikipedia)
Wikimedia Foundation
  • Wikipedia 'Judgment' section, hearing date
    The Queen's Bench Division sat on 4 December under Lord Chief Justice Lord Coleridge.
  • Wikipedia lead section, holding statement
    established a precedent throughout the common law world that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder
  • Wikipedia 'Aftermath' section, sentence commuted
    Harcourt decided on six months' imprisonment
  • Authored By: John Duke Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge, Infobox opinions field: Lord Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice
  • Decided By: King's Bench Division, Infobox court field: High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)
  • In Group: Right to Counsel and Necessity Cases, Introduction, sentence 1
    R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, DC is a leading English criminal case which established a precedent throughout the common law world that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder.
View the Source
The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law
Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, editors, Oxford University Press, 2006
Wikidata: R v Dudley and Stephens
Wikidata Q3305462, class allow-list match (w-wdresolver-0926)View the Source
An Introduction to Comparative Law
Konrad Zweigert and Hein Koetz; English translation by Tony Weir, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998In Legal System: Common Law
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.