R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (QB)

Facts

  • Dudley and Stephens, along with Brooks and a cabin boy, were stranded at sea after a shipwreck with no means of resupply.
  • After weeks adrift and deprived of food and water, Dudley and Stephens decided the cabin boy, who appeared weakest, should be killed to provide sustenance.
  • They killed the cabin boy and consumed his body in order to survive until rescue.
  • The central issue leading to trial was whether the killing, done to stave off starvation, amounted to murder or could be excused on grounds of necessity.

Issues

  1. Whether necessity can be a defence to a charge of murder where the killing was committed to preserve the lives of others.
  2. Whether the court could recognize a legal standard for evaluating the relative value of one life over another in such circumstances.
  3. Whether the defences of duress or necessity (arising from circumstances) could apply to the crime of murder.

Decision

  • The court unequivocally held that necessity is not a legitimate defence to a charge of murder.
  • The conviction of Dudley and Stephens was upheld; their actions in killing the cabin boy were not legally excusable.
  • The judgment stated that even under extreme duress or necessity, the law does not allow for the intentional taking of innocent life to save oneself.
  • The court refused to establish a legal standard for comparing or valuing human lives, holding each life must have equal legal standing.

Legal Principles

  • Necessity does not constitute a defence to murder under English law.
  • The defence of duress (whether by threat or by circumstance) is not available to charges of murder or attempted murder.
  • The law rejects the idea that individuals may take another’s life based on subjective assessment of comparative worth or necessity.
  • The sanctity of human life is of utmost importance and overrides claims of necessity or personal survival.
  • Subsequent cases (e.g., R v Howe, R v Gotts) have affirmed these limitations on necessity and duress as defences to murder and attempted murder.

Conclusion

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) established that necessity cannot justify the intentional killing of an innocent person and affirmed the law's commitment to the equal and inviolable value of all human life, regardless of extreme circumstance.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal