R vs Dudley and Stephenson
CASE SUMMARY
(1884) 14 QBD 273
[Defence of Necessity]
Facts
Dudley, Stephenson, Brooks and Richard Parker boarded a yacht. A wave struck the yacht and sank. The four escaped on a dinghy [a small boat] with minimal supplies and kept floating in the open ocean with no resources. With nothing to eat Brooks, Stephenson and Dudley decided to kill Richard to eat him to survive. When presented in court the accused took the defence of necessity.
Issue
Was the killing of Richard Parker covered under the general defence of necessity?
What does Sec. 19 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita says?
BNS Section 19 explains that an action that may cause harm is not considered a crime if it is done without bad intent and in good faith to avoid greater harm. This section highlights that whether such an action is justified depends on how serious and immediate the harm being prevented is. The examples provided clarify that if the harm being avoided is significant and urgent, then the act that might cause harm can be excused.
Judgement
The court ruled that even though Dudley and Stephens were in a dire situation, with no food or water and facing imminent death, their killing of Parker could not be justified legally on the grounds of necessity. The defence of necessity does not cover self-preservation as all human lives are equal and one cannot put one’s own life over another. Hence, the accused were convicted of the murder of Richard.
Comentários