Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The doctrine receives no support from Lord Hale who viewed that
necessity which justified homicide is considered a justification. Private
necessity which justified the taking of ones life to preserve his own is
commonly regarded as "self-defence." The court cited the authority of
Lord Hale where Lord Hale opined that one who kills an innocent person
under assault and in the risk of death would not be acquitted from
punishment of murder. However, if he kills the assailant who committed
the violence of assault in order to save his own life, he will be protected
by the law of necessity. Nevertheless, the court felt that it could be
doubtful upon Lord Hales statement as he further stated that despite
being under necessity of food or clothes, the act of stealing goods from
other people is felony and it is a crime punishable with death by the laws
of England. The court then observed that if the extreme necessity of
hunger does not justify larceny, how could Lord Hale have said to the
doctrine that it justified murder?
Thus, the court also cited Lord Bacon who lays down a principle
that necessity carries a privilege in itself. There are 3 types of necessity,
including the necessity of conservation of life, necessity of obedience,
and necessity of the act of God or of a stranger. Lord Bacon first
explained the conservation of life. It is neither felony nor larceny if a man
steals to satisfy his hunger. Similarly, if some divers are casted away of
their boat, one of them get to some plank, or on the boat's side to keep
himself above water, and a diver in order to save his life, thrust the other
person from it, his act is neither self-defence nor misadventure, but
justifiable. Lord Bacons dictum was questioned by his equals and the
superiors. The court agreed that there is possibility of many conceivable
states of things in which it might be true. However, it is certainly not the
law in the present day to adopt the broad principle laid down by Lord
Bacon that a man can save his life by killing an innocent and unoffending
person where it is necessary for him to do so.
The court decided that the deliberate killing of this unoffending and
unresisting deceased was undoubtedly a murder, provided that the killing
can be justified by some reasonable excuse accepted by law. In addition,
the court admitted that there is no excuse, unless the killing was justified
by what has been called necessity.
to happen. The duty of the judges is to interpret the law to their best of
their ability and to pronounce it according to their judgment. If in any
case the law appears too harsh on individuals, is it upon the discretion of
the Sovereign to exercise the prerogative of mercy which provided in the
Constitution.
Considering all the principles and facts, the court held that Dudley
and Stephens to be guilty of murder and they were sentenced to the
statutory death penalty. Nonetheless, they were pardoned by the Crown
and were freed after six months of imprisonment. This case is significant
in English common history which laid down the precedent that necessity
is not a defence to a charge of murder.
1469 words.
Sources:
Case Judgment
The Queen v. Dudley And Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC. Retrieved
from: https://www.justis.com/data-coverage/iclr-bqb14040.aspx