Post-Mortem Justice: are the sentences for ‘necrophilia’ adequate?

Carolyn Parsons, Senior Lecturer NLS https://www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/law/carolyn-parsons

The Origins of Section 70

Prior to 2003, there was no specific provision of criminal law dealing with the sexual penetration of a corpse. This lacuna was closed, but the change did not happen in the wake of any specific case or public outcry. In fact, during House of Lords debates on the Sexual Offences Bill, several peers questioned whether this provision was necessary at all. In February 2003, Lord Skelmersdale asked, “Are those abhorrent practices sufficiently common as to require legislation?”. By May, Lord Lucas echoed this scepticism: “Why do we need a separate offence for something that is probably extremely rare, particularly given the fairly rare opportunities in our current society to commit that sort of offence?”

Nonetheless, the offence was included as part of a broader reform of sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, following Setting the Boundaries, the independent review of sexual offences commissioned by the Home Office. Here authors noted that they were surprised that necrophilia was not already a criminal offence and further concluded that while it was a ‘rare and unusual’ offence, where it did occur the absence of law is ‘thrown into sharp relief’.

The Scope and Limitations of Section 70

Under the Sexual Offence Act 2003, section 70 criminalises intentional sexual penetration of a deceased person. The act must be deliberate, involve a body part or object, and the penetration must be sexual in nature as defined in Section 78. The offence is committed if the perpetrator knows, or is reckless as to whether, the person is deceased.

Sentencing varies by mode of trial: on summary conviction, the offender is liable to up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. On indictment, the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment (section 70(2)).

However, the offence is limited in scope and sentencing. It covers only acts of penetration, thereby excluding non-penetrative sexual contact. This narrow construction arguably reflects the views expressed in Parliament at the time: that the act was rare, extreme, and perhaps symbolic rather than fully conceptualised in law.

This limitation has practical implications. Non-penetrative sexual conduct, no matter how egregious, currently falls outside the scope of the offence. It also raises questions around gendered application: female offenders who do not engage in penetration may evade prosecution altogether, an oversight that fails to account for the full spectrum of sexually motivated acts.

Further, forensic research has since surpassed the legal framework. Professor Anil Aggrawal, widely recognised as a leading authority on necrophilia, proposed a typology of ten necrophilia categories in 2009. These include “tactile necrophiles” who derive gratification from acts such as touching, stroking, or licking a corpse, acts which remain outside the ambit of Section 70.

The David Fuller Case: A Turning Point

It was not until 2021 that public and political attention began to focus on this area of law. David Fuller, arrested for two historic murders, was later found to have sexually abused over 100 corpses in the mortuary of the hospital where he worked as an electrician. The abuse spanned more than two decades and was uncovered through digital evidence seized during the investigation.

The sheer scale and severity of his actions, combined with the revelation that the maximum sentence was only two years, provoked widespread public and professional outrage. A public inquiry followed, including a review of NHS morgue security and funeral industry regulation.

The Fuller case marked a shift in perception. What had previously been regarded as a rare, almost theoretical offence was now revealed to have caused devastating and prolonged harm to bereaved families. Victim impact statements read during sentencing described panic attacks, profound grief, and emotional trauma. One family member described the abuse as a "living nightmare"; another stated that their daughter would now always be remembered as “the girl raped by the monster.” Jay Carr, whose mother was among the victims, took his own life in the months following the revelation.

The Proposed Reform: Broadening the Offence

In response, a new offence has been proposed and is currently progressing through the House of Lords as part of the Crime and Policing Bill. It would retain the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse but expand it to include non-penetrative sexual touching.

The maximum penalty for penetration would increase from two to seven years imprisonment, whilst non-penetrative sexual touching would carry a maximum of five years. As with the current offence, the perpetrator must either know the person is deceased or be reckless as to that fact. “Touching” retains its definition from Section 79(8) of the 2003 Act. Importantly, the revised offence is now included in Schedule 3, meaning those convicted will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

This reform meaningfully addresses the narrowness of the original provision and represents a more comprehensive approach to criminalising necrophiliac acts.

Remaining Concerns Around Sentencing

Yet questions remain, particularly concerning proportionality and adequacy of sentencing. Under the proposed framework:

• Sexual touching of a corpse is afforded a maximum sentence of 5 years

• Sexual penetration of a corpse is afforded a maximum sentence of 7 years

  
  

By contrast:

• Sexual assault of a living person is afforded a maximum sentence of 10 years

• Assault by penetration or rape is afforded a maximum sentence of imprisonment

  
  

While the absence of a living victim may justify a differential in sentencing, this approach arguably underestimates the indirect but substantial harm caused to surviving loved ones. Though a complete discussion of direct post-mortem harm to the pre-mortem person is beyond this blog, the indirect emotional impact on families, clearly evidenced in the Fuller case, cannot be ignored.

Culturally, our funeral rites symbolise dignity, closure, and communal respect for the dead. Violating this social norm undermines these fundamental values. The question arises: do the proposed sentences reflect the moral and social seriousness of such conduct?

Furthermore, sentencing reductions and prison release policies significantly dilute the effect of increased maximum penalties. A guilty plea at the earliest stage could reduce a seven-year sentence to 4 years and 8 months. If the offence is not classified as serious violence or sexual offending (as is currently the case), early release rules could result in the offender serving just 40% of their sentence, less than two years in practice.

This leads us full circle: even under the revised law, an offender in the most serious case may serve the same custodial time as under the original, widely criticised provision.

Conclusion: Is There Post-Mortem Justice?

The proposed reform represents a significant improvement, but it may still fall short of delivering justice that reflects both the gravity of the conduct and the harm caused. If sentencing practices continue to reduce actual time served so dramatically, the law risks once again appearing merely symbolic; failing to reassure the public that the offence is taken sufficiently seriously and failing to meet the needs of those most affected.

Further Reading:

Hansard ‘House of Lords Sexual Offences Bill Volume 644: Debated on Thursday 13 February 2004’

Hansard ‘House of Lords Sexual Offences Bill: Debated 19 May 2003’

The Home Office ‘Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sexual Offences (Home Office July 2000)

Caroline Davies ‘David Fuller case spurs calls for tougher necrophilia sentences’ (The Guardian 15 December 2021)

Sir Jonathan Michael ‘Independent Inquiry into the issues raised by the David Fuller case: Phase 1 Report’ (November 2023)