Queen vs.

Dudley & Stephens

14 Q.B.D. 273
9 Dec 1884
Ponente: Lord Coleridge, Chief Justice
FACTS
Respondents Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, together with a certain Brooks and
between seventeen and eighteen-year old Richard Parker, were crew of an English yacht were in a
storm 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope and had to use an open boat to escape the storm.
The boat had no food and water except two eleven-pound tins of turnips. The tins lasted them for
three days and they ate a turtle on the fourth until the twelfth day. On the eighteenth day,
respondents consulted with Brooks on what to do if no help came. Eating Parker was suggested, but
Brooks refused. The respondents spoke about their survival and their families, thus, rationalizing
their plans. Parker was never consulted.
On July 25, no vessel arrived. Dudley, with Stephens consent, stabbed Parker in the throat.
The three men fed on the boy for three days. On the fourth day, a passing boat rescued the
castaways. They were brought to the port at Falmouth.
Dudley and Stephens were tried before Huddleston in Exeter on November 6, 1884. The
jury was unsure whether to indict the two of felony and murder considering that supposedly in a
much weaker state and that the other men would not have survived if they had not killed the boy.
The jury then elevated the matter to the High Court to seek its opinion on the killing of Parker.
ISSUE
Whether or not necessity (i.e. self-preservation or need) justifies the killing of another
person, in this case, the act of cannibalism
HELD
No.
While self-defense had been established as grounds for lessening the severity of murder
charges, no case decided beforehand had set an acceptable precedent to the Court. The closest
apparent precedent was that of Lord Bacon, whose opinion that necessity may spare a man charges,
but no law of the day justified the opinion.
The temptation that the prisoners was subjected to was not seen as a necessity as defined by
law. While temptation may be considered a part of morality rather than legality, the decision
considers abandoning divorcing law from morality as fatal. Temptation should not be an excuse
for ones actions; neither should it weaken the charges pressed against the respondent. The Court
ruled that there is no absolute necessity to save ones own life, especially at the expense of others.
The Court proceeded to pass a death sentence, which was eventually commuted to six
months of imprisonment.