LANDMARK CASE

R v. Dudley and Stephens

(1884) 14 QBD 273 · Queen's Bench Division (UK) · Criminal law

At a glance

Citation: (1884) 14 QBD 273
Court: Queen's Bench Division (UK)
Area of law: Criminal law
In one line: No. Necessity is not a defence to murder.

1 Facts

Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate the cabin boy to survive.

2 Issue

Is necessity a defence to murder?

3 What the court decided

No. Necessity is not a defence to murder.

4 Why it matters

A classic on necessity and the value of life.

5 Think about it

Would Indian law under the BNS allow necessity in this case?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Criminal law

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← R (Miller) v. Prime Minister R v. Woollin →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.