LEGAL METHOD
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q. B. D 274.
PSDA
Submitted by
SHRUTI KANSAL
Rank:29149
Semester: 1
Section: N
Submitted To:
MS. AVNEEK KAUR SETHI
Assistant Professor
Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies
Date of Submission
09.01.2023
Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies
VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
2023
INTRODUCTION
The widely famous case of Regina v Dudley and Stephens which deals with the taboo act of
cannibalism asks the debatable question of having necessity as a defence. The case brings
forth the beastly side of human nature and shows how it is triggered when faced with
helplessness and proximity to death. A man who, in order to escape death from hunger, kills
another for the purpose of eating his flesh, is guilty of murder; although at the time of the act
he is in such circumstances that he believes and has reasonable ground for believing that it
affords the only chance of preserving his life.
BRIEF FACTS
The yacht Mignonette was a 19.43 52-foot (16 m) cruiser built in 1867. It was
an inshore boat, not made for long voyages. Australian lawyer Jack Want purchased it in
1883 for leisure.[4] The vessel could at decent cost be transported to Australia by sailing, but
its size and the 15,000-mile (24,000-km) voyage daunted attempts that year to find a suitable
crew. It was sailed to Sydney from Southampton on 19 May 1884 with a crew of:
Captain Dudley, commander of the Mignonnette
1. Tom Dudley (1853–1900), the captain;
2. Edwin Stephens (1847–1914);
3. Edmund Brooks (1846–1919); and
4. Richard Parker, the cabin boy. Parker was 17 years old, orphaned and an
inexperienced seaman.
On 5 July, Mignonette was running before a gale, around 1,600 miles (2,600 km) northwest
of the Cape of Good Hope. The vessel was not struggling and Dudley gave the order to heave
to so that the crew could enjoy a good night's sleep. As the manoeuvre was completed, and
Parker was sent below to prepare tea, a wave struck and washed away the lee bulwark.
Dudley instantly realized that the yacht was doomed and ordered the single 13-foot
(4 m) lifeboat to be lowered. The lifeboat was of flimsy construction, with boards only 0.25
inches (6 mm) thick and was holed in the haste to get it away. Mignonette sank within five
minutes of being struck and the crew abandoned ship for the lifeboat, managing only to
salvage vital navigational instruments along with two tins of turnips and no fresh
water. Theories abound of the structural inadequacies of Mignonette that could not withstand
the onslaught of a gale.
Dudley managed to improvise a sea anchor to keep the lifeboat headed into the waves and
maintain her stability. Over the first night, the crew had to fight off a shark with their oars.
They were around 700 miles (1,100 km) from the nearest land, Saint Helena or Tristan da
Cunha. Dudley kept the first tin of turnips until 7 July when its five pieces were shared
among the men to last two days. On or around 9 July, Brooks spotted a sea turtle which
Stephens dragged on board. This yielded about three pounds (1.4 kg) of meat each plus the
bones which, along with the second tin of turnips, lasted until 15 or 17 July. They were
unable to drink its blood after it became contaminated with seawater. The crew failed to catch
any rainwater and by 13 July, with no other viable source of liquid, they began to drink their
own urine. It was probably on 20 July that Parker became ill through drinking seawater.
Stephens also became unwell, possibly from the same cause.
Drawing lots to choose a victim who would die to feed the others was possibly first discussed
on 16 or 17 July, and debate seems to have intensified on 21 July but without resolution. On
23 or 24 July, with Parker probably in a coma, Dudley told the others that it was better that
one of them die so that the others survive and that they should draw lots. Brooks refused.
That night, Dudley again raised the matter with Stephens pointing out that Parker was
probably dying and that he and Stephens had wives and families. They agreed to leave the
matter until the morning.
The following day, with no prospect of rescue in sight, Dudley and Stephens silently
signalled to each other that Parker would be killed. Killing Parker before his natural death
would mean blood to drink. Brooks, who had not been party to the earlier discussion, claimed
to have signalled neither assent nor protest; Dudley always insisted that Brooks had assented.
Dudley said a prayer and, with Stephens standing by to hold the youth's legs if he struggled,
pushed his penknife into Parker's jugular vein, killing him.
In some of the varying and confused later accounts of the killing, Parker murmured, "What
me?" as he was slain. The three fed on Parker's body, with Dudley and Brooks consuming the
most and Stephens very little. The crew even finally managed to catch some rainwater.
Dudley later described the scene, "I can assure you I shall never forget the sight of my two
unfortunate companions over that ghastly meal. We all was like mad wolfs who should get
the most, and for men—fathers of children—to commit such a deed, we could not have our
right reason." The crew sighted a sail on 29 July.
ISSUES OF LAW
Whether the killing of Parker was murder considering the circumstances of this case.
Whether necessity can be claimed as a defence for murder and can it make the act
permissible.
Whether killing of the boy to save one’s own life, in this case, be termed as an act of
self-defence.
PRINCIPLES
Self-preservation is not an absolute necessity
No person has a right to take another’s life to preserve his own life
There is no necessity that justifies homicide
DEFENCE
Necessity as a defence is defined under section 81 in Indian Penal Code
As per section 81 when a act is done to harm but which doesn’t have the parameter of
criminal intent within it, instead that act is rather done to prevent another bigger harm , then
committing of such act doesn’t constitute to an offence merely due to the fact of knowing the
extent of harm or a harm is likely to be caused as a result of that act which is done in good
faith.
In the present case, some people were stranded on an island without any food for weeks and
they decided to sacrifice the life of a fellow from their group, who was comparatively weak
and younger than the others, so that they can survive for a few more weeks. Keeping in mind
the facts and circumstances a question arises that being under the pressure of hunger would
the killing be considered as murder or rather necessity could be used as a defence for murder,
which makes the act rather permissible.
The necessity defence should be considered as a moral provision for ‘mala in se’ offences.
The phrase “Mala se” is used to refer to certain conduct which are assessed as sinful or
inherently wrong by nature, which is independent of regulations governing the conduct. The
shape of such defence should be used to track our moral judgments, when it becomes morally
permissible for a person to harm others.
The following points need to be present in order to use necessity as the defence:
With a choice given to make among two evils, the act was the lesser evil.
Act was done to prevent imminent harm
They reasonably anticipated a direct casual relationship between their conduct
and the harm to be averted, and
There was no legal alternatives other than violating the law
DISCUSSION
As necessary the circumstances seemed where sacrificing one’s life would save the rest, that
itself does not justify murder. The fact that Dudley and Stephens chose the weakest person to
be the victim also does not justify that Parker could not have survived. Instead, by killing
him, it is only making certain that he had no chance of survival.
JUDGEMENT
In the judgement the killing of Parker was held absolutely to be under the provisions of
murder
It was held that there is no right to delare temptation as a necessity and use it as a defence in
the killing of a innocent nor does it weakens the criminal charge that is lodged against such
offence of cannibalism.
A man who wants to escape hunger when he is struck in a boat kills another man this kind of
offence of murder can never be deemed to be innocent even if there is reasonable ground for
believing that it is the only chance of preserving his own life
It was therefore a duty to declare the offence as a wilful murder in this case.
According to the judgment the temptation of hunger which existed cannot be
deemed necessity according to law, there was further no such proof that could
justify the killing of the boy in order to feed themselves, moreover there was no
greater necessity to kill the boy rather than any of the other three men , but in this
case the weakest was chose as he couldn’t resist their actions.
So the answer is definitely “No”.
According to law is that where a private person acts upon his own judgment in
order to take the life of a being, then his act can only be justified on the ground of
self-defence against the person whose life is taken. This principle is extended to
include the case
where a man kills another person to prevent him from committing some greater crime upon a
third person.
But this principle has no application in this particular case of cannibalism, as the prisoners
were not protecting themselves against any act of the deceased where the deceased was so
exhausted and weak out of hunger that he couldn’t even resist the killing plan that was
instituted against him, so self defence couldn’t be used over here.
The Court then passed death sentence upon the prisoners.
HELD
Yes, it is a murder. Stephens and Dudley to be sentenced to death. The necessity of hunger
does not justify larceny, let alone murder. Stephens and Dudley chose the weakest and
youngest to kill and it was not more necessary to kill him than any of the other grown men.
Stephens and Dudley were tempted to kill Parker but temptation itself is not an excuse for
murdering him. Their unfortunate circumstances also do not lend leniency to the legal
definition of murder.
ANALYSIS
The very fact that Richard Parker was chosen to be killed suggests that his life was
considered less important than the life of the others reason being that Richard was an orphan
and had no family to look after. Even if it was essential to kill one person to survive, it is just
immoral or unjust to kill the weakest and unresisting one. If this trend of picking on the
weakest continues until the rescue arrives, then everyone would be justified in killing and
thereby would not be guilty of murder.
The case deals with the application of Self-defence. The law is that a person can be justified
in taking the life of another only in case of self-defence against the one whose life was taken.
This rule, however, has no application in this case as Parker, being ill, posed no threat to the
men? So the man cannot claim self-defence as a justification because there was no
provocation, implied or otherwise by the unresisting boy which may encourage the men to
take such a drastic action. Moreover, self–defence which extends to defence of others, is
sufficiently flexible to allow the pre-emptive use of force, provided the person employing the
force believes his or her conduct to be necessary and the use of force is objectively
reasonable taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances. The situation here is
quite different as there is no involvement of Parker at any point in time.
By the killing of the boy, which was itself an immoral act, the defendants with certainty
deprived him of any chances of survival. If was possible that the men might be rescued the
next day in which case it would be a “profitless” act to kill the boy.
Necessity, in simple terms is using violence to repel that is violence which is reasonable,
justified and necessary to stop the illegal act towards oneself. Necessity which justifies
homicide is of two kinds, 1. Necessity which is of private nature and 2. Necessity dealing
with public welfare. The first kind which is relevant for the case, is self-defence which has
already been dealt with. In the present case, however, there was clear murder as the
temptation to which the defendants succumbed is not what law calls “necessity”. Necessity
must be inevitable to justify homicide. Moreover, the concept of “necessity” should extend to
everyone, not just the boy because he was in a disadvantageous position.
CONCLUSION
Practicing cannibalism, during the 19th century by sailors and seaman was quite a natural act
but there were laid some conditions. There needed to be enough fairness and consent of
everyone present on board was utmost necessity. This was procedure followed at that time-
the right thing to do. Dudley and Stephens were not the first cannibals who had done this.
Guesswork is that maybe their trial was done as they had broken the rule of conduct. After
the verdict, everything experienced a change. The savage, barbarous nature of cannibalism
was widely condemned and the custom of the sea was denounced as a sacrilegious appeal to
god. The law laid down by this case was a good law. It strengthened the justice system by
discouraging people from taking the law into their hands. Necessity can never be defence for
any crime. Morality is considered more than just what is right, it is a general respect shown
by one for another human being.
