What law comes from R v Dudley and Stephens?

The case of R v Dudley and Stephens is a landmark legal case that established important principles regarding the defense of necessity in criminal law. The case involved two sailors who resorted to cannibalism to survive while stranded at sea, leading to their conviction for murder despite their argument of necessity.

Necessity defense:

The case is a classic statement on the common law necessity defense, which allows defendants to avoid criminal liability if they can demonstrate that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater evil. However, the court in this case rejected the defense, emphasising the sanctity of human life and setting a precedent that necessity does not justify murder (Minchin, 2020; Schwartz, 2008; Twining, 1986).

Moral and legal precedent:

The trial was used to affirm societal values and the rule of law, reflecting Victorian moral standards. It highlighted the tension between pragmatic utilitarianism and a high moral view of the sanctity of life, ultimately prioritising the latter (Hibbard, 2019; Woolrich, 2020).

Judicial reasoning and bias:

The judgment was influenced by the Victorian mindset and societal norms of the time, which played a role in shaping the legal reasoning and outcome of the case. This reflects how societal biases can impact judicial decisions (Woolrich, 2020).

In conclusion, R v Dudley and Stephens is a pivotal case in legal history that underscores the limitations of the necessity defense, particularly in cases involving the taking of life. It established a legal precedent that necessity cannot justify murder, reflecting broader societal and moral values of the time. The case continues to be a reference point in discussions about the boundaries of legal defenses and the influence of societal norms on judicial reasoning.

Read a case summary of R v Dudley and Stephens.

References

1. Minchin, G., 2020. Regina v Dudley & Stephens Anatomy of a Show Trial. Beijing Law Review. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2020.113048
2. Schwartz, S., 2008. Is There a Common Law Necessity Defense in Federal Criminal Law. University of Chicago Law Review, 75, pp. 8.
3. Twining, W., 1986. CANNIBALISM AND LEGAL LITERATURE. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 6, pp. 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1093/OJLS/6.3.423
4. Hibbard, A., 2019. Cannibalism and the Late-Victorian Adventure Novel: The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens. English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920, 62, pp. 305 – 327.
5. Woolrich, M., 2020. R v Dudley and Stephens: Degeneration, the Christian Mindset and Judicial Reasoning. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 22, pp. 15 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x19001777

Image by Michelle Raponi from Pixabay