LAW

Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law- Kelly(1998) CA
Core Issue: Can human body parts be considered "property" capable of being stolen under theft laws?
Facts:
  • Defendant (D) convicted of stealing ~35 human body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons.
  • D appealed, arguing that a human corpse (or its parts) is not property and therefore cannot be stolen.
Held:
  • The Court upheld the common law position: a human corpse is not property capable of being stolen.
  • Exception: If a corpse or its parts have been altered for medical/scientific examination, they gain value and become property that can be stolen.
  • D's conviction for theft was upheld due to the altered state of the body parts.
Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning for the Decision):
  • The alteration of body parts for medical/scientific purposes imbues them with value, transforming them into property under the law.
Obiter Dicta (Remarks "by the way"):
  • Rose LJ suggested the common law position on body part possession is not static.
  • Future courts might rule unaltered body parts as property, especially if intended for organ transplant or other specific uses.
Picture
0 Comments