The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

View this case and other resources at:

Brief Fact Summary.

The Defendants, Dudley and Stephens and two other gentlemen, Mr. Brooks and the victim, Richard Parker, were stranded on a boat for several days. When it appeared that the whole party would likely die of thirst and starvation, the Defendants decided to sacrifice Mr. Parker for the good of the rest.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The jury found: the defendants would probably have not survived to be rescued if they had not killed and eaten the victim. The victim was likely to have died before the rest of the men. There was no reasonable prospect of rescue at the time of the killing. However, assuming a necessity to kill someone, there was no greater necessity for killing the victim than any other man. Upon these findings the jury did not know if the defendants were guilty of murder.

Facts.

The Defendants, Mr. Brooks, and the victim Mr. Parker were English seamen. The group was cast away in a storm on the high seas and was compelled to put into an open boat that had no supply of food or water. After the group had been without food for seven days and without water for five days, the Defendants spoke to Mr. Brooks about sacrificing the victim Mr. Parker to save the rest. Mr. Brooks dissented and the victim was not consulted. Mr. Dudley suggested that if no vessel was in sight the next morning, they would kill the victim. No vessel appeared the next day, so Mr. Dudley with the assent of Mr. Stephens killed the victim. The three remaining castaways fed upon the victim Mr. Parker for four days at which time a passing vessel rescued them.

Issue.

Are the Defendants guilty of murder?

Held.

In this passage from the case, the textbook merely sets out the jury’s findings. Namely, the jury found: the defendants would probably have not survived to be rescued if they had not killed and eaten the victim. The victim was likely to have died before the rest of the men. There was no reasonable prospect of rescue at the time of the killing. However, assuming a necessity to kill someone, there was no greater necessity for killing the victim than any other man. Upon these findings the jury did not know if the defendants were guilty of murder. In a discussion of the principles of necessity later in the textbook, the court did, in fact, find the defendants guilty of murder.

Discussion.

While no holding is discussed here, the author is encouraging thought on whether the retributive and utilitarian principles upon which our criminal law is based encourages the punishment of the Defendants.