The real title of the case is: Her Majesty The Queen vs.

Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens. And it

is a criminal case that shook the English society of its day, and still plays with people’s minds
today because it deals with the harshest aspects of life and death: survival.

The Dudley and Stephens case was decided in 1884 in a very Victorian England, where Queen
Victoria ruled a society that was incredibly devout in its Christianity and had a very conservative
view of the world. Its ruling established one of the most important precedents in common law,
which is that necessity is not necessarily a defense against a charge for murder.
 
Dudley and Stephens were shipwrecked when sailing on the English yacht Mignonette, which
was a 52-foot cruiser that had been built in 1867.This was long before the days of air travel
and campervan hire. It wasn’t the smartest choice for their voyage, as it was an inshore boat and
had not been designed for long voyages. The owner of the vessel was John Henry Want, who
was an Australian lawyer. He wanted to sail her from England to Sydney, Australia. Because of
her size and obvious incapability to survive such a long voyage, it was hard for John to find a
suitable crew who would be willing to take the risk of steering her. But he finally did in Tom
Dudley, the captain; Edwin Stephens; Edmund Brooks and Richard Parker, the cabin boy who
was a very inexperienced seaman, an orphan and only seventeen years old.

When the yacht finally hit the northwest of Cape of Good Hope on July the 5th, a gale was
carrying the sailboat. The weather was relatively normal, nothing was out of sync with the boat.
Everything was going well. But Dudley ordered the crew to “heave to” so that everyone could
finally get a good night’s sleep. When the crew completed the heave to, the cabin boy, Parker,
was sent below deck for tea. Right then a wave struck the yacht and washed away the lee
bulwark. Dudley knew right then and there that the yacht was a goner. He ordered the one
lifeboat to be lowered. But this lifeboat wasn’t in the best of shape, and wasn’t built very well.
Despite this, the crew obeyed orders and climbed into it. The Mignonette sank within five
minutes of being hit. Dudley and the crew were able to fortunately get a few navigational
instruments along with some turnips, but no fresh water.
And the bad luck kept coming. The crew survived a shark attack that night. Being nearly seven
hundred miles away from the nearest land, they were losing hope minute by minute. The first
two days the crew survived on turnips, and then Brooks saw a turtle and they ate it. The crew
knew they couldn’t drink seawater. Because there was no other freshwater they resorted to
drinking their own urine. It’s estimated that on July 20th Parker became ill, probably from
drinking seawater.
According to Dudley, the crew discussed cannibalization openly between them during this
period. According to this testimony, the crew decided to draw lots to choose who would be the
victim of cannibalization to keep the others alive. They started to discuss this option on the 16th
or 17th of July and by the 21st the discussion had turned into a very heated argument, with no
resolution in sight. Parker had fallen into a coma around the 23rd or 24th of July. Dudley kept
encouraging his crew that one should die to save the others, and drawing lots would be the best
way to end this problem. But Brooks wasn’t having it. Dudley wouldn’t let up, though. He
pointed out that both he and Stephens had wives and families, while the Parker boy was an
orphan with no connections. The crew still hadn’t come to any agreement though, that night.
They all decided to sleep on it.

The next day there was still no hope of a rescue. They were still stranded 700 miles from any
human contact. Both Dudley and Stephens signalled to one another that Parker should be the one
to go. What was the point of drawing lots when he was obviously going to die? They knew that
killing Parker would best preserve his blood for drinking. The other crewman, Brooks, claims he
had not been involved in the earlier discussion, and he claimed in court that because of his
ignorance he had not given any direct signal to the two men of his agreement or dissent.
However, Dudley claimed that Brooks had also given his permission to go ahead with the plan.
Dudley then said a prayer and used a penknife to kill the boy. The men consumed the flesh. On
July 29th they were rescued.

At the trial, both Dudley and Stephens were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. But the
sentence was commuted to six months in prison. This case set a precedent that cannibalism was
both illegal, and that necessity for survival doesn’t excuse murder.

Brief Fact Summary. Dudley and Stephens (defendants) murdered a fellow young

seaman (Parker) in order to save their own lives from starvation. They were found guilty
of murder.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify
murder even if it under extreme necessity of hunger.

Facts. Dudley and Stephens along with Brooks and Parker(victim) were cast away at
sea without weeks of food and water except for some turnips and a turtle. After twenty
days, Dudley and Stephens proposed one person sacrifice himself in order to save the
rest. Brooks dissented while Dudley and Stephens decided to kill Parker since he was
the weakest and youngest. On the 25th of July, seeing no rescue in sight, the two men
killed Parker and the three men feasted on his body. Four days later a vessel rescued
them and Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.
Issue. Whether the killing of Parker was murder considering the circumstances of this
case.

Held. Yes it is murder. Stephens and Dudley to be sentenced to death.

The necessity of hunger does not justify larceny, let alone murder. Stephens and
Dudley chose the weakest and youngest to kill and it was not more necessary to kill him
than any of the other grown men.

Stephens and Dudley were tempted to kill Parker but temptation itself is not an excuse
for murdering him. Their unfortunate circumstances also do not lend leniency to the
legal definition of murder.

Discussion. As necessary the circumstances seemed where sacrificing one’s life would
save the rest, that itself does not justify murder. The fact that Dudley and Stephens
chose the weakest person to be the victim also does not justify that Parker could not
have survived. Instead, by killing him, it is only making certain that he had no chance of
survival.