Preventing the lawful burial of a body

Criminal Law Review

Volumn 1996, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 96-103

  Hirst, Michael ^a  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 5244289867     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. I can find no record of any indictment for preventing lawful cremation (or even for preventing lawful burial or cremation) but nothing would seem to turn on this. See Hunter [1974] Q.B. 95 at p.98.
2. One cannot be certain of this, since not all cases are reported, but there seem to have been no reported cases involving this offence between 1788 and 1973.
3. As to the circumstances under which a qualified informant may incur a duty to report such a death, see sections 16 and 17 of the Act.
4. Currently £200.
5. Black [1995] Crim.L.R. 640.
6. (1842) 2 Q.B. 248.
7. This appears to be the same offence as was charged in Dytham [1979] Q.B. 772, in which a constable was indicted for failing to take any action when he saw a man being beaten to death outside a club. See also Ward and Hollister [1995] Crim.L.R. 398.
8. (1851) 2 Den. 325.
9. (1788) 2 Term. Rep. 733.
10. (1883) 15 Cox 171.
11. The infant's body had been terribly mutilated, but the grand jury found no evidence that the defendant had been responsible for this, and there was nothing to contradict the defendant's contention that the infant was still-born.
12. (1825) 4 B. & C. 902.
13. The indictment was in any case held to have been defective.
14. This covers the disposal of the body of an infant who have died before, during or after birth. There is accordingly some possible overlap with the common law offence. In the absence of concealment, there can be no offence under this provision: cf. Clark, supra.
15. (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 331. See also Price (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 247.
16. (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 331. See also Price (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 247.
17. (1933) 24 Cr. App. R. 70.
18. On such facts, one could equally bring a charge of perverting the course of public justice: cf. Rafique [1993] 3 W.L.R. 617.
19. [1974] Q.B. 95.
20. [1974] Q.B. 95 at pp.97-98.
21. (12th ed., 1964) at p.1420.
22. [1974] Q.B. 95 at p.98.
23. (1986) 8 Cr. App. R. (S.) 470.
24. (1990) 12 Cr. App. R. (S.) 76.
25. (1981) 3 Cr. App. R. (S.) 255.
26. As to the desirability of keeping indictments short and simple, wherever possible, see the Court of Appeal's observations in Staton [1983] Crim.L.R. 190.
27. His petrol receipts showed that he had driven to (or beyond) Dundee later that evening, and back to England the next day.
28. 3 Inst. 47.
29. This notwithstanding the fact that James I was also King of Scotland. As for the later Act of Union, this takes pains to ensure that the courts of England do not assert jurisdiction over matters or events occurring in Scotland.
30. Scottish courts, like the English ones, can deal with murders committed by British citizens outside the United Kingdom, but not in England or Northern Ireland: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, s.6. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.10, deals with cases in which a victim dies abroad (or in Scotland) after being fatally injured in England or Wales, but is not effective in cases where the court cannot establish where the crime was committed.
31. Another statute giving rise to extraterritorial jurisdiction over murder is the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, s.4. This, however, also fails to provide for murders committed in other parts of the United Kingdom. As to the limits of English jurisdiction generally, see Hirst, &The Criminal Law Abroad& [1982] Crim.L.R. 496.
32. See for example Newton (1982) 77 Cr.App.R. 13.
33. The Court of Appeal in Hunter offered little guidance on mens rea issues, beyond stating that prevention of burial need not be the primary purpose of the offender.