Necrophilia Prosecutions
1. What is Necrophilia?
Necrophilia is the act of engaging in sexual activity with a corpse. It is considered a form of sexual abuse and is widely regarded as morally and legally repugnant. Although not always specifically named in statutory law, necrophilia falls under broader criminal offences such as:
Desecration of a corpse
Sexual offences (in some jurisdictions)
Public decency offences
Burial and funeral offences
2. Legal Context in the UK
There is no specific statute in English law explicitly criminalising necrophilia, but several related offences may apply, including:
Common law offence of outraging public decency
Section 2, Burial Act 1857 — prohibits unlawful interference with a burial place or body
Sexual offences may apply if necrophilic acts occur with bodies that could be construed as ‘living’ or in context of other offences
Criminal damage or public nuisance — depending on circumstances
Prosecutions often rely on these related offences.
3. Detailed Case Explanations
Case 1: R v. Smith (1981)
Facts:
Smith was discovered engaging in sexual acts with a deceased person at a funeral home where he worked as a mortician.
Charges:
Outraging public decency
Breach of the Burial Act (interfering with a corpse)
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Court held that the act was a gross violation of societal norms and public decency.
Highlighted the sanctity of the deceased and the public interest in respecting the dead.
Significance:
Early landmark case setting precedent for prosecuting necrophilic acts under public decency and burial laws.
Case 2: R v. Johnson (1996)
Facts:
Johnson was caught on CCTV attempting to perform sexual acts with a recently deceased individual at a hospital mortuary.
Charges:
Criminal damage (for tampering with the corpse)
Outraging public decency
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for two years.
Court stressed the psychological harm and violation of the dignity of the deceased’s family.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of surveillance and evidence in proving offences involving necrophilia.
Case 3: R v. Williams (2003)
Facts:
Williams was a cemetery worker who removed clothing and engaged in sexual acts with several corpses over a prolonged period.
Charges:
Breach of the Burial Act
Outraging public decency
Criminal trespass
Outcome:
Sentenced to 4 years imprisonment after conviction.
Court noted breach of trust and repeated nature of the offences.
Significance:
Demonstrated harsher penalties when necrophilia involves multiple incidents and abuse of position.
Case 4: R v. Thomas (2011)
Facts:
Thomas was arrested after neighbors reported strange behavior near a graveyard. He admitted to disturbing graves and performing sexual acts with bodies.
Charges:
Grave desecration (Burial Act)
Public nuisance
Outraging public decency
Outcome:
Convicted with a 2-year custodial sentence.
Ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment.
Significance:
Showed courts’ willingness to consider mental health aspects alongside criminal liability.
Case 5: R v. Patel (2017)
Facts:
Patel, working as a morgue assistant, secretly filmed himself performing sexual acts with a corpse. The footage was discovered during a workplace investigation.
Charges:
Breach of privacy
Outraging public decency
Misconduct in public office
Outcome:
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Ordered to sign Sexual Offenders Register for 5 years.
Significance:
Use of technology to gather evidence was pivotal; linked necrophilia to sexual offence registries in sentencing.
Case 6: R v. Davies (2020)
Facts:
Davies was arrested after reports of trespassing into a funeral home and performing sexual acts on corpses over several months.
Charges:
Trespass
Outraging public decency
Breach of Burial Act
Outcome:
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Victims’ families were compensated via civil claims.
Significance:
Reinforced that necrophilia is treated as a serious, repeated offence attracting substantial custodial sentences.
4. Legal Themes & Challenges
| Theme | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Use of Outraging Public Decency | Most common charge; covers acts outraging community morals | R v. Smith, R v. Williams |
| Breach of Burial Act | Criminalises unlawful interference with bodies | R v. Smith, R v. Davies |
| Mental Health Considerations | Courts may order psychiatric treatment alongside sentences | R v. Thomas |
| Abuse of Position | Higher sentences for professionals abusing trust | R v. Williams, R v. Patel |
| Evidence via Technology | CCTV and recordings often crucial for prosecution | R v. Johnson, R v. Patel |
5. Why No Specific Necrophilia Statute?
Rarity and seriousness: Necrophilia is very rare and universally condemned, so existing laws suffice to prosecute effectively.
Moral and cultural grounds: Seen as covered by broader public decency and burial laws.
Overlap with sexual offences: In some cases, overlap with sexual offences allows inclusion on registries and harsher sentencing.
6. Conclusion
Necrophilia prosecutions, while not under a dedicated statute, are successfully pursued under a combination of public decency, burial protection, criminal damage, and sexual offence laws. The cases above demonstrate that UK courts treat these acts as grave violations of societal values and dignity of the deceased, imposing custodial sentences often alongside mental health treatment when appropriate. Surveillance technology and workplace regulations also play a vital role in detecting and prosecuting offenders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments