R v Sharp 1857 Dears & Bell 160
Wrongful entry to a burial ground and removal of remains from therein
Facts
The defendant was accused of breaking and entering a burial ground and removing the remains of his mother who was buried there. He did this under the pretext that he required that the grave be opened in order to assess whether the size of the grave would accommodate the coffin of his recently deceased father. He then took the remains of his mother to another churchyard where he intended to bury his father’s corpse with the remains of his mother. This was done without the knowledge or consent of the owners of the burial ground.
Issues
The jury was directed to convict at first instance. The defendant subsequently contended that the conviction was wrong. The Court was required to consider whether the defendant had acted wrongfully even where he had acted out of filial affection and religious duty.
Decision/Outcome
The Court subsequently affirmed the conviction. The defendant had committed trespass and obtained a licence to enter the burial ground by misleading the person responsible for said burial ground. The removal of the corpse was not justified by the defendant’s “estimable motives.” The Court stated that the law recognises no property in a corpse and referred to the protection afforded to graves at common law which must be respected. Nevertheless, although the court stated that the conviction should stand, the Judge handed down a nominal fine of one shilling on account of respect for the motives of the defendant.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately describes the facts, issues, and outcome of R v Sharp (1857) Dears & Bell 160. The core legal principles it identifies — that there is no property in a corpse at common law, and that unauthorised removal of remains from a burial ground is unlawful — remain good law. The ‘no property in a corpse’ rule has been affirmed and developed in subsequent English case law, including R v Kelly [1999] QB 621, which recognised that body parts may acquire property status where they have acquired different attributes through the application of skill. More recently, the Human Tissue Act 2004 introduced a statutory framework governing the removal, storage, and use of human tissue, which students should be aware of alongside the common law position. The criminal and civil protections for burial grounds have also been supplemented by statute, notably the Burial Act 1857 and subsequent legislation. The article does not claim to cover these later developments, and readers should treat it as addressing the historical common law foundation only. Within those limits, the case summary is accurate.
