Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
the relationship between criminal law and morality. This case concern
about three seamen and a deceased boy whereby they were stranded at sea
on a small emergency boat and the deceased was killed in order to preserve
the others’ life. The case was decided in year 1884 in the Queen’s Bench
Division. Before looking into the principle of law, the fact of the case will
be discussed briefly.
Richard Parker, an English cabin boy who aged between 17 and 18 years
were cast away in a storm on the high seas 1600 miles from the Cape of
Good Hope. They had no choice but to put into an emergency boat of the
English yacht. In the open boat, there were no supply of water and food
except for 2 tins of turnips. The turnips helped them to subsist for 3 days.
On the fourth day, a small turtle was caught. After consuming the remains
of the turtle, they were starved for 7 days with no food and 5 days with no
water. Hence, on the next day, Dudley and Stephens suggested to Brooks
they should draw lots to decide who would be killed to save the others but
Brooks refused to do so. On that day, Dudley and Stephens spoke of their
families and Dudley pointed out that it would better to sacrifice Parker to
preserve the others’ life. Dudley suggested that Parker should be killed if
they were not succoured by tomorrow morning. On the next day, no vessel
appeared and Dudley told Brooks to have a sleep, and made signs to
helplessly. He was ill due to famine and the drinking of sea water. He was
too weak to resist, nor did he ever assent to be killed. After a prayer offered
by Dudley, he with Stephens’s assent, told Parker that his time was come.
Then, Dudley stabbed his throat using a knife and killed him. Consequently,
all three men cannibalised his body and drank his fresh blood for 4 days.
On the fourth day of the incident, three of them were rescued by a passing
vessel.
TAN HUEY KHIM LEB130088 LXEB3125 ORAL SKILLS FOR LAW
Had they not fed upon the body of Richard Parker, they would probably
extremely weaken stage, was likely to have died before them. At that point
of time, there was no passing veil, nor any reasonable possibility for them
of saving life as they would die of famine unless they cannibalise Richard
Parker or any one of themselves. However, this case was adjourned until
as provided in books, murder is implied as “if they do not state, the doctrine,
that in order to save your own life you may lawfully take away the life of
another, when that other is neither attempting nor threatening yours, nor
The doctrine receives no support from Lord Hale who viewed that
necessity which justified the taking of one’s life to preserve his own is
TAN HUEY KHIM LEB130088 LXEB3125 ORAL SKILLS FOR LAW
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
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
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 of the act of God or of a stranger. Lord Bacon first explained the
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
dictum was questioned by his equals and the superiors. The court agreed
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
him to do so.
The court decided that the deliberate killing of this unoffending and
the court admitted that there is no excuse, unless the killing was justified
the law and morality are not the same, whereby an immoral thing may not
consequence if the law is allowed to depart totally from morality. The court
held that “to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be
the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it.” The court went on to
explain that a war is an example in which it is a man's duty not to live, but
TAN HUEY KHIM LEB130088 LXEB3125 ORAL SKILLS FOR LAW
moral necessity, not of the preservation, but of the sacrifice of their lives
value of lives. It is clear that the standard leaves to him who is to benefit
sacrificing another's life to save his own. In this situation, the weakest, the
youngest, the most unresisting boy, Richard Parker was chosen. The court
said it is not a necessity to kill him than one of the developed man.
The court went on to say that it is quite obvious that such a principle
The duty of the judges is to interpret the law to their best of their ability
Considering all the principles and facts, the court held that Dudley
statutory death penalty. Nonetheless, they were pardoned by the Crown and
English common history which laid down the precedent that necessity is
1469 words.
TAN HUEY KHIM LEB130088 LXEB3125 ORAL SKILLS FOR LAW
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