R v. Dudley and Stephens [1884]

14 QBD 273 (1884) · Queen's Bench Division · England and Wales

criminal law and procedurecriminal law and procedure

Issue

Is necessity a defense to murder?

Held

No. Necessity was not a defense to intentional murder on these facts.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Classic necessity and homicide case.

Facts

Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy while adrift at sea.

Issue

Is necessity a defense to murder?

Held

No. Necessity was not a defense to intentional murder on these facts.

Ratio Decidendi

Necessity generally does not excuse intentional killing of an innocent person.

Reasoning

The court refused to let perceived necessity justify selecting an innocent person to die.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273 (1884)) strengthens a criminal law and procedure answer because the case reflects the principle that Necessity generally does not excuse intentional killing of an innocent person. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Is necessity a defense to murder? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Classic necessity and homicide case.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources