- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Kelly (1998)
Core Principle: Property in Body Parts After Alteration
The central idea of R v Kelly is that body parts, after being lawfully altered, can become considered property, and therefore can be stolen.
This deviates from the general principle that there is no property in a corpse.
Facts of the Case
Defendants: A junior technician from the Royal College of Surgeons.
Action: Removed body parts from the college.
Intended Use: An artist wanted to use the body parts as molds for his work.
Charge: Theft.
Defense: Claimed that a corpse cannot be considered property, therefore, it cannot be stolen.
Court Decision
Guilty of theft.
Reasoning: Body parts can become property if skill has been applied to them, altering their attributes. Examples are:
Dissection
Preservation Techniques
Purpose of alteration: Exhibition or teaching purposes.
Significance and Implications
Establishes an exception to the "no property in a corpse" rule.
Highlights the importance of alteration through skill (dissection, preservation) in transforming a body part into property.
Related Cases
Doodeward v Spence (1908): Supports the idea that work or skill applied to a body part can create a property interest.
Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990):
Facts: A patient's cells were used to develop a valuable patented cell line. The patient claimed his property rights were violated.
Decision: The court rejected the property claim, primarily because recognizing property rights in this context would hinder medical research.
Dissenting Argument: Argued that the issue wasn't about the general "no property" rule, but whether the patient retained ownership after the body part was removed.
Outcome: The patient did succeed in a negligence claim based on lack of informed consent.
Contrast with R v Kelly: Demonstrates tension between property rights and public interest (medical research). Also shows how property rights of body parts may be superseded by other concerns.
Key Takeaways
Alteration is Key: The application of skill (dissection, preservation) is crucial in establishing property rights in body parts.
Limited Exception: R v Kelly creates a specific and limited exception to the general "no property in a corpse" rule.
Balancing Interests: Courts must balance property rights with other societal interests, such as medical research and public health.
Consent: The Moore case emphasizes the importance of informed consent when dealing with patient body parts.
Core Principle: Property in Body Parts After Alteration
The central idea of R v Kelly is that body parts, after being lawfully altered, can become considered property, and therefore can be stolen.
This deviates from the general principle that there is no property in a corpse.
Facts of the Case
Defendants: A junior technician from the Royal College of Surgeons.
Action: Removed body parts from the college.
Intended Use: An artist wanted to use the body parts as molds for his work.
Charge: Theft.
Defense: Claimed that a corpse cannot be considered property, therefore, it cannot be stolen.
Court Decision
Guilty of theft.
Reasoning: Body parts can become property if skill has been applied to them, altering their attributes. Examples are:
Dissection
Preservation Techniques
Purpose of alteration: Exhibition or teaching purposes.
Significance and Implications
Establishes an exception to the "no property in a corpse" rule.
Highlights the importance of alteration through skill (dissection, preservation) in transforming a body part into property.
Related Cases
Doodeward v Spence (1908): Supports the idea that work or skill applied to a body part can create a property interest.
Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990):
Facts: A patient's cells were used to develop a valuable patented cell line. The patient claimed his property rights were violated.
Decision: The court rejected the property claim, primarily because recognizing property rights in this context would hinder medical research.
Dissenting Argument: Argued that the issue wasn't about the general "no property" rule, but whether the patient retained ownership after the body part was removed.
Outcome: The patient did succeed in a negligence claim based on lack of informed consent.
Contrast with R v Kelly: Demonstrates tension between property rights and public interest (medical research). Also shows how property rights of body parts may be superseded by other concerns.
Key Takeaways
Alteration is Key: The application of skill (dissection, preservation) is crucial in establishing property rights in body parts.
Limited Exception: R v Kelly creates a specific and limited exception to the general "no property in a corpse" rule.
Balancing Interests: Courts must balance property rights with other societal interests, such as medical research and public health.
Consent: The Moore case emphasizes the importance of informed consent when dealing with patient body parts.
0 Comments