Offences against dead bodies

Problem (Back to top)

Dead bodies and human remains occupy a unique position in society and in the law. Their treatment engages values of dignity and respect for the person who has died, and consideration for their family and community. Yet the criminal law affords only fragmented protection.

There is no offence dealing specifically with mistreatment or concealment of a dead body in England and Wales, nor of disrespectful acts towards dead bodies or human remains generally (for example, sharing images).

There are a variety of common law and statutory offences which may apply to some reprehensible conduct towards the dead, but none do so comprehensively and clearly. On the other hand, some existing offences may be too broad or could reflect outdated views.

There are also narrow specific criminal offences within the wider laws that regulate burial, cremation and other funerary methods, organ donation, anatomical examination, exhumation, and the handling of human tissue.

The position is surveyed in an article by Dr Imogen Jones:  

“The law capable of applying to such circumstances is primarily constituted of antiquated and vague common law offences, supplemented by statutory provisions dealing with very narrow circumstances (such as organ donation, medical research and coronial jurisdiction).”

The common law offences of outraging public decency and prevention of a lawful and decent burial provide a degree of redress in criminal law. However, as Dr Jones describes, these do not address desecration of a dead body in a straightforward or adequate manner. For example, the offence of outraging public decency does not encompass conduct taking place away from public view. It is also unclear and ill-defined, to the extent that in 2015 we recommended its abolition.

These common law offences are supplemented by many statutory ones (some modern, some less so). They criminalise various conduct toward dead bodies, but none squarely address desecration. They include: 

sexual activity with a corpse, under section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (when it is amended by section 115 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026);

concealing the birth of a child (where the child has died before, at or after birth), under section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861;

some inappropriate sharing of photos of dead bodies under communications offences such as section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and

offences in the Human Tissue Act 2004, such as removing, storing, or using human tissue without appropriate consent for any of the following Scheduled Purposes: anatomical examination, determining cause of death, assessing treatment efficacy, obtaining medical or scientific information which may be relevant to other people, public display, research, transplantation, audit, education, assessment, public health monitoring, or quality assurance.

Older statutory offences may also reflect outdated views. For example, Dr Emma Milne has argued that the concealing the birth of a child offence:

“is an archaic provision; a product of the nineteenth century, reflecting the values of that time in relation to women’s sexuality and their positions as mothers and wives, specifically as pregnant single women”.

Dr Milne has also noted that other offences cover wrongful concealment of dead bodies in any event.

Project (Back to top)

This project forms part of the Law Commission’s 14th Programme of Law Reform. 

The project will review the criminal law on conduct towards a dead body or human remains. The project will identify any gaps in the current law and make recommendations to ensure that the criminal law provides consistent, effective and appropriate protection against the interference with bodies or human remains after death.

Issues we will consider include: 

Dismemberment, mutilation and other interference with a dead body or human remains.

For example, in 1985 Emyr Owen pleaded guilty to a common law offence of “mutilating a corpse”, but it is not clear that this constitutes an offence under common law.

Taking, making, sharing and possessing images of a dead body or human remains.

For example, there have been several cases involving emergency service workers taking, downloading or sharing images of homicide victims.

Sexual abuse (including image-based abuse) of a dead body or human remains.

For example, the conduct of David Fuller, who sexually abused at least 100 deceased people in the mortuaries of hospitals he had worked in from around 2005 – 2020.

Concealment of a dead body or human remains, and of information relating to the location of a dead body or human remains.

For example, a homicide offender’s refusal to provide the location of their victim’s body.

Peri-mortem (around the time of death) conduct towards a victim, which would be an offence if the victim were alive when it occurred, but the evidence does not establish whether the victim was alive or dead at the time of the conduct.

This could include sexual conduct where (because it is unclear whether the victim was alive or dead at the time) neither the offence of sexual activity with a corpse, nor rape or sexual assault offences can be proven. On the same basis, it could include violent conduct where neither a homicide offence, nor any general mutilation offences we may recommend can be proven.

As set out in the terms of reference, four issues are out of scope of this project:

regulation of the death care sector;

regulation of the sale and display of dead bodies and human remains;

property offences (for example, theft and fraud); and

offences related to our separate Burial, Cremation and New Funerary Methods project.

This is to enable us to focus on the conduct above, targeting our analysis closely at potential wrongs done to dead bodies and human remains. We have also already considered regulation of the death care sector in the context of our burial, cremation and new funerary methods project and the sale and display of human remains may form part of our museum collections project.

We are not considering property offences, partly because property law generally has not classified a dead body as “property” for a very long time. More importantly though, we do not think that property offences can adequately describe the conduct being considered here. We would not, for example, tend to describe the removal of a living person’s leg as “theft” or “robbery”. Likewise, these words do not adequately describe removing a dead person’s leg either.

Next steps (Back to top)

The Law Commission has commenced early work on the project. We are conducting research to inform a preliminary paper in 2027, setting out our current understanding of the issues, the scope of the project and inviting initial views. We will then turn our attention to drafting a consultation paper including provisional proposals for reform.

We anticipate the timeline for the project to be as follows:

Early 2027: preliminary paper published

Late 2027: publication of a consultation paper with provisional proposals for reform

Early 2029: publication of the final report, setting out our recommendations