“Body parts can be stolen property when altered by human skill and effort.”
Kelly, a sculptor, and Lindsay, a laboratory technician, took body parts from the Royal College of Surgeons without permission. The parts had been preserved and prepared for medical education and research purposes.
Whether body parts and corpses could constitute 'property' capable of being stolen under the Theft Act 1968.
The Court of Appeal held that body parts could be property for theft purposes. The convictions were upheld.
This case fundamentally changed the understanding of what constitutes 'property' in theft law, particularly regarding human remains. It has important implications for medical law, research ethics, and modern transplant medicine.
You're reading the free summary of R v Kelly. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Kelly [1999] QB 621 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.