What conclusion did Lord Coleridge CJ reach regarding the defense of necessity in R v. Dudley and Stephens?

In the case of R v. Dudley and Stephens, Lord Coleridge CJ articulated significant concerns regarding the defense of necessity. He emphasized the moral implications of allowing such a defense, recognizing that it could result in a dangerous precedent where the strong might exploit the weak under the guise of necessity. By rejecting the defense, the court reinforced the principle that moral and legal standards should not be compromised, even in dire circumstances. This conclusion highlights the importance of maintaining societal order and ensuring that any justification for serious wrongdoing must carry stringent ethical considerations.

The other answers, while they may touch on aspects of the necessity defense, do not capture the essence of Lord Coleridge's reasoning in the same context. For instance, while the idea that necessity could allow survival in dire situations might seem appealing, it poses significant risks without strict limits, which is precisely why the court found it necessary to reject such a rationale where it could enable exploitation. Similarly, views on the upholding of moral standards and the notion that necessity has become outdated do not reflect the chief justice's focus on the implications of power dynamics between individuals in society.