CHAPTER 5 Learn from Cases

1. Analyze the following case

R. v. Dudley and Stephens (Queen's Bench, 1884).

"Cannibalism on the High Seas"

Dudley, Stephens, Parker, and Brooks were shipwrecked and had run out of food. Dudley and
Stephens killed Parker and the three remaining men ate his body to survive. Once rescued,
Dudley and Stephens confessed to the murder, believing that resorting to cannibalism was a
"custom of the sea."

At trial, they advanced the defense of necessity; i.e., they had to kill Parker in order to survive.

What was held at the court?

The court held, however, that necessity could not be a defense to murder in this situation and
that even shipwrecked, Dudley and Stephens' obligation was to sacrifice their own lives rather
than kill another.

2. Actus Reus & Mens Rea

Actus Reus – is the Latin phrase which translates as ‘guilty act’. In legal terms this is one of the
elements to be proven before anyone can be liable to criminal punishment. The actus reus part
is something which has been made criminal through criminal law or statute.

Mens Rea – is the Latin phrase for ‘guilty mind’. This defines the state of mind of the person
doing or planning to do the criminal activity.

The difference is therefore defined in the intention of the person doing the act. As a simple
example, if one person kills another person unintentionally (actus reus) this may be deemed as
manslaughter whereas if some kills someone internationally or with malice (mens rea) then
this would be considered to be murder.

3. Analyze the following case

R. v. Cunningham (Queen's Bench, 1957)

"Gas leak?"

Cunningham broke into a house to steal the gas meter. In the process, he failed to turn off the
gas. Gas fumes leaked into the house, nearly killing Mrs. Wade and her husband. Cunningham
was convicted after the trial judge clarified to the jury that "malice" meant "wicked"; i.e.,
"something which he has no business to do and perfectly well knows it."

LECTURER: N. NEWAZ KARIM (ACCA AFFILIATE)

 CHAPTER 5 Learn from Cases
What was held at the court?

On appeal, the Queen's Bench reversed the decision: In order to be convicted of a crime, the
defendant must have the requisite intent to commit that crime. In Cunningham's case, he had
the intent to steal the gas meter, but not the intent to poison Mrs. Wade.

4. Analyze the following case

People v. Ceballos (Calif. Supreme Court, 1973).

“Unthinking Machine”

Don Ceballos was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. He had crafted a "trap gun" -- a
loaded pistol pointed at the door to his garage connected to the door by a wire. If the door was
opened a few inches, the wire would pull the trigger, setting off the gun. The California Supreme
Court affirmed his conviction because trap guns are inherently dangerous, unthinking
machines.

What was held at the court?

The court dismissed his defense that using a trap gun was no different from using a gun if he
had been physically present; Ceballos wasn't there to evaluate the situation and determine
whether deadly force was actually required.

LECTURER: N. NEWAZ KARIM (ACCA AFFILIATE)