An unconventional analysis focusing on the detail missed by the Crown (in 1884) and by the related publications. Forgot/omitted a slide where I also argued about the inaccurate testimony of the slaughter. Punching "Jugular Vein" typically leads to death by embolism, not by hemorrhage. It is most likely that the defendants had cut Parker's Carotid Artery (not the Jugular Vein) because they had drunk blood after the slaughter. Although this correction would not update the prosecution process, my point is that the prosecution and the judges did not pay attention to this technical reality and kept repeating and rewriting the case from the verbiage of initial testimony. The same content is presented by Naira as a lecture on youtube.com

1. CRIMINAL LAW
R v. Dudley & Stephens
R v. Dudley & Stephens,
, 14 QBD 273 D
14 QBD 273 DC
C
Naira Renault, MD, MSJ, PhD
February 2022
An unconventional analysis
An unconventional analysis
Copyright © 2022. This is an original assessment. All rights reserved.

2. DISCLAIMER
Viewer discretion
and parental control
are advised due to
the feral and barbaric
nature of the case.

3. R v. Dudley & Stephens
R v. Dudley & Stephens,
, 14 QBD 273 DC
14 QBD 273 DC
Regina v. Dudley & Stephens
Regina v. Dudley & Stephens,
, 14 QBD 273 DC
14 QBD 273 DC
Queen v. Dudley & Stephens
Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,
, 14 QBD 273 DC
14 QBD 273 DC
CASE ANALYSIS
In memoriam of the victim, R. Parker
3

4. CASE BRIEF

FACTS: Dudley and Stephens killed and ate Parker (an underage
crewman, orphan) to save their own lives from starvation. Rescued
by a German barque (Montezuma) en route to Hamburg, they were
transported to England, entered statutory statements under the
Merchant Shipping Act, then deposed, indicted, detained, arraigned by
the Falmouth Harbour Police under the notice of Bassinghall office.

RULE OF LAW: Taking an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify
murder regardless of the dire physical need or temptation.

INDICTMENT: Murder on the high seas inside the jurisdiction of Admiralty.

ISSUE: Whether, under the English Criminal Code of 1878–1879, the
killing of Parker constituted murder - given the circumstances of the case?

HOLDING: The necessity of hunger, inter alia, and harsh circumstances do
not justify any crime, let alone murder, and do not lend leniency to the legal
definition of murder. Defendants chose the weakest and youngest to kill and
it wasn't more entailing to kill an underage man than any other grown man.

VERDICT: Both are guilty of murder.

RULING: Initially death penalty, then revised and reduced to six-month
confinement. Prisoners were released in May 1885. 4

5. SIDES
●
Queen Victoria, the Crown and the State
●
Defendants
Tom Dudley age 31, the captain of Mignonette
Edwin Stephens age 37, the first mate
●
State witness
Edmund Brooks age 38, the sailor (who also
ate the killed flesh)
●
Victim
Richard Parker age 17, the cabin boy (on his
first long voyage at sea). 5

6. UNDISPUTED NARRATIVE
●
In 1883, an Australian lawyer (Jack Want) bought a leisure yacht,
Mignonette, an inshore boat – unfit for a long voyage. For a decent fee, the
yacht had to be transported from Southampton (England) to Sydney
(Australia) by sailing 15,000 miles (24,000 km) across the South Atlantic.
A crew of four was formed: Dudley (captain), Stephens (mate), Brooks
(sailor), Parker (cabin boy, age 17). An English newspaper, “Account”
(1884-1885), described the three adults as “men of excellent character”
and the boy as ”an orphan, with no family, on his first long voyage at sea.
He joined, rather against the advice of his friends, in hopefulness of useful
ambition, thinking that the journey would make a man of him. Sadly, it was
not to be.”
●
Leaving Southampton on 05/19/1884, on 07/05/1884 Mignonette
reached 700 miles (1,100 km) away Tristan da Cunha where it was struck
and damaged by a giant wave. The crew abandoned the sinking ship for a
lifeboat, managing only to salvage vital navigational tools, two tins of
turnips, no freshwater. The first night, the crew fought off a shark* with
oars. Dudley kept the first tin of turnips until July 7th
. The first can was
consumed with care, over two days.

7. NARRATIVE (continued)
●
The crew managed to catch and eat a sea turtle (1.4 kg) through July 15th
–
17th ,
along with the second tin of turnips. Unable to collect rainwater, the
seamen began drinking their own urine. On July 20th
, Parker drank seawater
(against the advice of others) and became gravely ill. From July 17th
to 24th
,
Dudley suggested throwing a lottery, so that one of them would sacrifice his
life for others to survive. No agreement was reached. On July 25th
( the 19th
day on the lifeboat), Dudley and Stephens signaled to each other that Parker
(then in a coma, at guise) would be killed before dying, so there would be
blood to drink. They reasoned that Parker was a fitting sacrifice, as he “was
an orphan, and unmarried.” Brooks allegedly remained disengaged, contrary
to what Dudley had written in his diary or testified at trial. Offering prayers,
Stephens held the boy's legs, Dudley pushed a penknife into Parker's jugular
vein, killing him. Aware that he was being slain, the boy murmured, “what
me”? The next four days the three fed on Parker's body and blood, with
Dudley and Brooks consuming the most, and Stephens – just a morsel.
●
On the 24th
day, at a state of prostration, the three were rescued by a German
bark Montezuma (en route Hamburg), returned on
09/06/1884 to Falmouth/Cornwall/England , checked
at Customs Office, deposed by Falmouth Harbour police,
detained, arraigned, pleaded non-guilty (by “necessity
murder” and “customs of the sea ”), and tried at Exeter.

8. DEFENSE AUTHORITIES
●
Common-law: In all four precedents below, the issue was whether
an altruistic (voluntary) or predatory cannibalism was excusable as a
complete defense by reason of dire necessity (physiological, mental).
Saint Christopher (17th
century) - pardoned by the judge
Owen Coffin, a teenager (1820) - no data of a process or trial
U.S. v. Holmes (1841) - introduced three tests:
a) necessity must exist and be proven,
b) the slayer must be faultless,
c) the killer must owe no duty to the victim.
Guilty verdict. Sentenced to six months in prison and fined $20.
James Archer (1874) – the prosecution withdrew due to the
lack of jurisdiction (Singapore, England).
●
English Criminal Law Commissions 1839–1879: viewing
necessity as a defense of homicide or a royal prerogative of clemency.
●
Philosophical Theories: “The Plank” of Carneades (155 BC).

9. LAW & JUSTICE
●
are separated by
inquiry.
●
Justice answers the
“why” question.
●
Law answers the
“how” question.
●
are separated by
subject matter and
process.
●
Not all immoral acts
are unlawful and not
all illegal acts are
shameful.
LAW & ETHICS
INTENT is for the jury (not the judge) to decide.
The jury finds, the judge rules.
IN THE ANGLO-SAXON JURISPRUDENCE:
9

10. TECHNICAL DETAILS THAT THE CROWN AND
THE CASE PUBLICATIONS HAVE MISSED
●
Strict liability and culpability toward a minor (Parker) ran effective June 1884
(let alone the murder on July 25th
), when three adult seamen (led by captain
Dudley) took with them a 17 y/o orphan boy (underage for making independent
decisions about his life and safety) in a longlasting maritime trip from England to
Australia, aboard a 52-foot (16 m) long inshore cruiser (built in 1867), with a
single, flimsy, 13-foot (4-meter) long lifeboat with thin (0.25 inch or 6mm) bords.
●
There is no data whether the crime on the sea was first reported to the Majesty by
the German crew that discovered the boat, or by the defendants at the Falmouth
Harbour? In 1884, there were no methods of marine radio or wireless telegraphy.
●
Parker's remains were not recovered for proper forensics. There is no word
whether the dismembered corpse was discarded into the ocean, or carried back to
Falmouth by the German ship over a month (from July 30th
to September 6th,
1884). If carried, there is no word on how the corpse was preserved for evidence?
●
The evidence was testimonial (volunteered by defendants, one of who became a
“state witness”). The defendants' honesty or allocution (for admitting a
horrendous first-degree murder and cannibalism) without manipulating with
alternative theories (like “a shark, not them, had severed and killed Parker” *)
wasn't considered for leniency against the initial death penalty. 10

11. INTRICACIES OF PROSECUTION
●
DISCOVERY & THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT: William Otto Adolph
Julius Danckwerts, a barrister of a six-year experience in wreck inquiries,
was briefed. Danckwerts was concerned about difficulties imposed by the
lack of evidence. The only witnesses were defendants themselves and their
right to silence would impede any formal proceedings. A confession was
only admissible against the person making it, not the co-defendants. The
telegraphed deposition was too weak for a conviction.
●
STATE WITNESS: At the magistrate hearing on 09/18/1884, Danckwerts
offered that Brooks be discharged so that he could be called as a state
witness. Danckwerts opened the prosecution case and called Brooks and
those who had heard the survivors' stories. The bail was extended.
●
VIGOROUS PUBLIC SENTIMENT: Adult male views in Falmouth
had swung to backing the defendants and a consensus was laid on
defense side, especially after the bench appearance (09/12/1884)
where Richard Parker's brother (Daniel) - also a seaman - shook
hands with the three cannibals. A bail was issued. The prosecutor
(the Home Secretary Sir William Harcourt) was revolted by the
public sentiment and more determined for conviction.
11

12. DECISION TO PROSECUTE
Sir William
Harcourt,
Home Secretary
Sir Henry
James,
Attorney
General
William Otto A.
J. Danckwerts,
barrister-
consultant
●
The trial began
on 11/03/1884
at Exeter, before
the judge Baron
John Walter
Huddleston.
The “necessity,”
“insanity” and
“ratio
decidendi”
defenses were
dismissed. A
special verdict
was rendered
on 11/07/1884.
Death penalty
was imposed.
TRIAL ANATOMY
Baron John
Walter
Huddleston,
sitting judge
Baron Arthur
Charles QC,
lead
prosecutor
Sir Farrer
Herschell,
Solicitor
General
Sir Arthur J.
H. Collins QC,
defense
attorney
Defendants:
Tom Dudley &
Tom Dudley &
Edwin Stephens
Edwin Stephens
State witnesses:
Edmund
Edmund Brooks
Brooks
& random
& random
learners of the
learners of the
news
news
Seven sworn-in
jurors

13. THE “SPECIAL VERDICT”
●
Judge Huddleston gave the jurors a binary choice: either to accept his
offer to find the seamen guilty of murder, or to return a special verdict.
Yet, without following his own instructions, nor waiting for the jurors'
determination, the judge instantly provided a special verdict which he
had pre-written the night before the trial and asked the jury to assent
to each paragraph. Therein he had speculated that “all four crewmen
would die anyway unless one of them was killed and eaten.” Though the
jury tried to add some facts to the verdict, the judge asserted that
their observations were already incorporated. The final verdict said:
"But whether upon the whole matter, the prisoners were and are guilty
of murder the jury are ignorant and refer to the Court."
●
Thus, the jury made the conclusions of facts but was unable to reach a
culpability verdict. Instead, the jury submitted a special verdict,
requesting the court to determine Dudley & Stephens’s culpability
based on the findings of facts. The judge renewed the bail and
adjourned the assizes to the Royal Courts of Justice (London) for a
circuit review scheduled on 11/25/1884. 13

14. THE “SPECIAL VERDICT”
●
Judge Huddleston gave the jurors a binary choice: either to accept his
offer to find the seamen guilty of murder, or to return a special verdict.
Yet, without following his own instructions, nor waiting for the jurors'
determination, the judge instantly provided a special verdict which he
had pre-written the night before the trial and asked the jury to assent
to each paragraph. Therein he had speculated that “all four crewmen
would die anyway unless one of them was killed and eaten.” Though the
jury tried to add some facts to the verdict, the judge asserted that
their observations were already incorporated. The final verdict said:
"But whether upon the whole matter, the prisoners were and are guilty
of murder the jury are ignorant and refer to the Court."
●
Thus, the jury made the conclusions of facts but was unable to reach a
culpability verdict. Instead, the jury submitted a special verdict,
requesting the court to determine Dudley & Stephens’s culpability
based on the findings of facts. The judge renewed the bail and
adjourned the assizes to the Royal Courts of Justice (London) for a
circuit review scheduled on 11/25/1884. 14

15. POST-TRIAL JUDGMENT
●
The Divisional Panel of the Queen's Bench had authority to decide a matter of
law after a referral by the inferior court and only by statute, and there were
none. Suspicious of Huddleston's behavior, Sir James (Attorney General)
suggested an alternative: hearing at the Cornwall and Devon assizes and
augmenting the High Assize Court with more judges. Huddleston disagreed
(desirous of affirmation). On Dec 2nd
it was agreed to form the Queen's
Bench-D by 2-3 judges only. On 12/04/1884, at a hearing led by Chief Justice
Lord Coleridge, the panel found that there was no “defense of necessity” to a
charge of murder - based on the precedents as well as ethics codes. A foreign
case (United States v. Holmes, 1842) was visited too. Dudley & Stephens were
sentenced to a statutory death penalty with a recommendation for mercy.
●
Before the day of circuit review, the trial judge Huddleston
realized that he had lapsed serious errors by changing in
his original draft the description of Mignonette from
"English Merchant vessel" to "yacht," and describing the
lifeboat as "an open boat." Judge Huddleston thought that
his mistake could be resolved, would he be allowed to
simply correct the errors on the verdict record.
Chief Justice
Coleridge

16. FINAL SENTENCE
before, he minded his official duties and feared that commuting the
sentence to anything other than life imprisonment would undermine the
law. For a lighter sentence, lifting the felony conviction to manslaughter
was non-feasible without another jury trial. There was no legal basis for
another jury trial. As simple as it could get, based on Sir Henry James's
(Attorney General) and Sir Farrer Herschell's (Solicitor General)
arbitrary advice, on 12/12/1884 Harcourt decided on six-month
imprisonment. Tom Dudley never accepted the justice of his conviction.
He and Edwin Stephens were released nearly six months after, on
05/20/1885.
●
Sir Arthur Collins (the defense attorney) had an option
for raising a writ of error for the unsettled judicial and
constitutional issues in the case. As his clients were
convicted, the public opinion was shifting against the
convicts. The royal prerogative of mercy could only be
exercised by Queen Victoria, based on the advice of Sir
William Harvout (the Home Secretary).
●
Although Harcourt had been against death penalty
Sir William
Vernon
Harcourt, Home
Secretary

17. CHIEF ARGUMENTS
1) Titling of the case
2) Inchoate offense: The state witness wasn't an
accomplice but still, he was an accessory under
the Common Purpose Doctrine.
3) The facts of the case were entirely testimonial.
4) The right to silence was neither explained nor
exercised
5) The jury selection wasn't voir dire.
6) Unusual trial and “special verdict”
7) Punishment inequity.
17

18. I. TITLING OF THE CASE
<< R v. Dudley & Stephens >>
<< R v. Dudley & Stephens >>
Did
Did Brooks,
Brooks, indeed,
indeed, qualify as a state witness
qualify as a state witness
and not as the third defendant to correct the
and not as the third defendant to correct the
case title
case title,
, “
“Regina v. Dudley, Stephens, Brooks
Regina v. Dudley, Stephens, Brooks”?
”?
For the answer, revisit the slide 9
For the answer, revisit the slide 9:
: In the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence,
In the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence,
Law and ethics (moral codes) are separated by the subject matter
Law and ethics (moral codes) are separated by the subject matter
and the process. In this case, the charge and conviction were only of
and the process. In this case, the charge and conviction were only of
“murder,”
“murder,” not
not “cannibalism.”
“cannibalism.” Therefore, the
Therefore, the “necessity murder”
“necessity murder”
defense was dismissed. Because there was no separate charge of
defense was dismissed. Because there was no separate charge of
“
“necessity cannibalism,”
necessity cannibalism,” Brooks
Brooks wasn't tried.
wasn't tried.

19. II. INCHOATE OFFENSE
●
Under the Common Purpose Doctrine, was Edmund Brooks
qualified as an
accessory or accomplice
to the first-degree murder?
●
Accomplice - a person who helps another commit a crime.
●
Accessory – a person who assists the perpetrator of a crime, without
directly committing it, often without even being present.
●
Under the English Criminal Code, known as “The Bloody Code” of 50
offenses (operating in Victorian reign), the test to distinguish a joint
ill principal from an accessory was whether the defendant
independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than
merely giving general or limited help or persuasion.
●
Based on the Bloody Code wording, Brooks was fit to neither category
and so he wasn't tried.

20. III. FACTS OF THE CASE
●
- were exclusively testimonial.
●
The German crew of the barque Montezuma, who first
discovered the crime scene in the south Atlantic, had no
duty to collect proper evidence of a maritime crime for an
offshore state, based on the International Maritime Laws &
Treaties or other legal publications present in Victoria's
time: Vattel (1758), Kent (1878), R. Phillimore (1879),
Hall (1880). *
●
The facts of the case amounted to the reports of the
defendants. Thankfully, the testimonies were honest.
*“United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.” Geneva, Switzerland, 1958.
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1958_los/docs/english/vol_1/a_conf13_1.pdf

21. IV. THE RIGHT TO SILENCE
- was neither explained to nor exercised
by the detainees.
●
Was such a deviation from the regular
prosecution process necessary or
justified - given the testimonial nature of
the evidence?
21

22. V. THE JURY POOL
●
Seven jurors were impaneled and sworn-in, as had sat with the
same judge a day before, in a murder case that had resulted in
death penalty. This could psychologically contribute to the
exhausted jury's attitude (prejudice) for a “necessity murder”
defense.
●
The selection bias would be addressed, would the jurors in
Regina v. Dudley & Stephens be sworn-in via voir dire test, during
which time they would be asked as “yes” or “no” dichotomous
question: “has anyone in your distant or nuclear family, or friends,
neighbors, coworkers, classmates, and all other relators - been
murdered and/or eaten by a “necessity cannibalism”?
●
Although cases of cannibalism are extremely rare in Europe, a
complete trial had to adhere to the voir dire principle to rule out
the possibility that a sitting juror was affected by a similar
experience among his/her relators. There are no published data
as to voir dire exam secured in the jury selection in this case.

23. VI. UNUSUAL TRIAL: SPECIAL VERDICT
●
Judge Huddleston navigated the trial in a fashion that the jury
was left with two categorical choices:
1) either to render a guilty of murder verdict, or
2) to accept the judge's offered “special verdict” hinting
that “all seamen would die but for the murder.”
●
Overall, the jury was instructed to find the defendants guilty
of murder; however, the masterful separation of a verdict on
facts from a verdict of culpability availed the Queen's Bench
Panel and Cornwall & Devon Assizes to conclude that indeed,
there was no “defense of necessity” to a charge of murder,
however, the statutory death penalty could be amended by a
“mercy” consideration and later reduced to six-month
confinement.
For details, visit the slide 13, “The Special Verdict.”

24. VII. PUNISHMENT INEQUITY
●
This goes to the heart of the argument
that Edmund Brooks was unfairly
recategorized from the status of a
“defendant” to the status of the “state
witness.”
The reading of the prosecution's mind in this
regard is provided in the slide 11, “Intricacies
of Prosecution.”

25. NECESSITY v. CONSENSUAL
CANNIBALISM: PARALLELS WITH A
GERMAN CASE
"The Man Who Ate His Lover". Body Shock (Channel 4 TV, UK).
●
SUMMARY: Armin Meiwes, then a 41 y/o computer technician,
placed an ad online for a well-bodied male he could kill and eat. The
43 y/o Bernd-Jurgen Brandes responded to the ad. Meiwes took
Brandes to his home in Rotenberg (Lower Saxony). They had sex
before the murder (with salacious deviations involved). Per the
victim's consent, Armin stabbed Bernd-Jurgen repeatedly in the
neck, then dismembered the body and froze the pieces for later
consumption. He consumed ~ 20 kg of the corpse. Armin Meiwes
was arrested and confessed to the murder, although cannibalism
wasn't illegal in Germany in 2001. Meiwes was convicted of killing
by request and defiling a corpse. He received a sentence of 8.5 years
in prison. In May 2006, Meiwes was resentenced to life in prison
after a retrial.