IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) BETWEEN: R.

Respondent and

Sir Indiana Bones Appellant

BRIEF TO COUNSEL

Sir Indiana Bones, an eminent antiquarian, had a special interest in the relics of English saints. He travelled to Bugthorpe Manor in Berkshire, to make the acquaintance of its owner, Lady Bugthorpe, an impoverished elderly widow. Lady Bugthorpe had an outstanding collection of religious relics, including what purported to be the finger bone of St George, the patron saint of England. Lady Bugthorpe was overwhelmed at the honour of being visited by such an eminent figure. Not lacking in considerable personal charm, Sir Indiana persuaded Lady Bugthorpe to give her the relic. In what she later described to the police as a moment of madness, she handed the relic over to him as a present. Sir Indiana thanked her and left with the relic as quickly as politeness allowed. The day after Sir Indianas visit, on suddenly coming to her senses, Lady Bugthorpe telephoned the police. They quickly arrested Sir Indiana and charged him with dishonestly appropriating property, namely the finger bone, belonging to another, namely Lady Bugthorpe. At his trial, counsel for the defendant argued that the acceptance of a gift could not be an appropriation, within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968, and that, even if it could, a human finger bone was incapable of belonging to another within the meaning of the Act. No question arose as to the defendants dishonesty.

The trial judge, her Honour, Judge Phalange QC, directed the jury inter alia that, in order for them to convict the defendant of theft: a) It was immaterial that the victim, Lady Bugthorpe, gave the relic to the defendant, since a person who receives a gift may appropriate the property which is the subject matter of the gift. b) The expression property belonging to another as used in the 1968 Act, could apply to a relic of this kind, since the common law rule that there was no property in the body applied only to a corpse awaiting burial. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury in this way. The Court of Appeal, however, affirmed the trial judges direction in its entirety. The defendant now appeals to the Supreme Court on the grounds that: 1) A person who receives a valid gift from another cannot be held, within the meaning of s3 of the Theft Act 1968, to be a person who appropriates the property which is the subject matter of the gift. 2) A relic consisting of a human bone cannot be property belonging to another, as that expression is used in the Theft Act 1968, since the common law rule that there was no property in a body applied, not only to a corpse awaiting burial, but to human body parts generally.