## 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.


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