Dudley and Stephens Mapping Exercise Commentary: OSCOLA Sample Extract

For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.

This extract shows one way to tackle option 3 (law, ethics and morals) of the University of Westminster Legal Systems, Cultures and Ideas Summative Assessment 1 mapping exercise: a map extract and a model Dudley and Stephens commentary of about 500 words with OSCOLA-style references. If you want the reasoning behind each choice, read our guide on how to approach a mapping exercise commentary. The brief itself sets the word limit and referencing rules, so check your own brief and module handbook before copying any structure.

Planning table

Map extract (presented as a table)

Your own map can use any tool the brief allows. The table below shows the content a map of this case might carry, branch by branch.

Counsel’s arguments and the judges’ opinion (reference table)

Commentary (about 500 words)

The map

The map places R v Dudley and Stephens at its centre and splits outwards into three arms: law, ethics and morals. Solid lines show where one arm supports another, for example where the court’s legal rule matches a deontological idea of human dignity. Dashed lines show conflict, such as the gap between the legal verdict and the public sympathy that followed it. Later authorities sit on a timeline at the edge, so the reader can see how the 1884 rule developed.

Counsel, the judges and the ruling

In 1884 the defendants, adrift in an open boat, killed a sick cabin boy and survived by eating him. Their counsel argued that the killing was necessary to save three lives. The Crown replied that no authority allowed anyone to take an innocent life to preserve their own. Lord Coleridge CJ, giving the court’s opinion, held that necessity was not a defence to murder, and the conviction was affirmed [1]. The court asked who was to decide whose life was worth more, and found no principled answer. The Crown then commuted the death sentence to six months’ imprisonment, a compromise between law and public feeling [4].

Dilemmas and theories

A utilitarian would say that three lives outweigh one, so the killing minimised harm. A deontologist would answer that the boy was treated purely as a means, with no consent and no threat from him. The case also tests legal theory. Hart argued that law and morality should be kept distinct, so a judge may apply a rule while openly admitting its moral cost [5]. Fuller’s fictional Speluncean Explorers shows how the same facts can produce competing judicial philosophies without any of them being plainly wrong [6].

My position

I agree with the ruling, but not with every step of its absolute language. A rule allowing necessity to excuse murder would require courts to rank lives by weakness or luck, and that invites arbitrary results. The pardon route lets the executive recognise human frailty without rewriting the law. Yet Re A (Conjoined Twins) shows the 1884 rule is not the whole story. The Court of Appeal allowed surgery that would inevitably end one twin’s life, treating necessity as available where death was already certain and the separation saved the other twin [2]. That is easily distinguished from the cabin boy, Richard Parker, who was not dying of his own condition. Similarly, R v Howe refused duress as a defence to murder for a principal offender, a result consistent with the 1884 reluctance to excuse the intentional killing of an innocent [3]. Taken together, these cases support a narrow rule: the law will not let a person choose who dies, but it will respond to extreme pressure through sentencing and mercy. That position protects equal human worth while leaving room for compassion.

How each source is used (illustrative OSCOLA footnote forms)

In the footnotes, OSCOLA writes authors as initials and surname, while the bibliography reverses this to surname then initials, as in the list below. Cases are normally listed first, then secondary sources. Check your module guidance for the exact bibliography layout your marker expects, and note that the square-bracket markers in this extract stand in for your Word footnote numbers.

Why this structure works

Notice the order. The map explanation comes first, as the brief asks, then the facts and judgment are kept short, and the largest block of words goes to the position. A common error is to spend 350 words retelling the facts and leave 80 for the argument. Notice also that each section ends on a link back to the question: should the ruling be agreed with? Markers reward that discipline.

Another point is source quality. A case report, a House of Lords authority, a Court of Appeal judgment, a monograph and two journal articles give a mix of primary and secondary material. That is stronger than six sources of one type, and it shows the CRAAP test (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose) was applied rather than just quoted. If you need help structuring your own, see our law assignment help page or the common law assignment help page. Our editorial team also supports students at the University of Westminster, and a proofreading service can check OSCOLA formatting before you submit.

References

[1] R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (DC)

[2] Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147 (CA)

[3] R v Howe [1987] AC 417 (HL)

[4] Simpson AWB, Cannibalism and the Common Law (University of Chicago Press 1984)

[5] Hart HLA, ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 593

[6] Fuller LL, ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’ (1949) 62 Harvard Law Review 616

Prepared by

Students Assignment Help UK Editorial Team

This model answer was prepared by our editorial team in response to a real assignment brief we received. It shows one way to approach the task and is meant as a study guide, not for submission.