Judgment Search

Exhumations

Display:

In January 1995 the cremated remains of Harold Bristeir were interred in plot 15000 in the cemetery. It was the intention at the time that when his wife Joan Bristier died, her remains would be interred in the same plot. In March 1995, Mrs. Bristeir's brothers, Michael and Roland Durber reserved rights of burial in the adjacent plot 14999. When Roland died in 2011, his remains were interred in plot 15000, owing to a mistake by the burial authority. This mistake came to light in 2017, when Mrs. Bristeir died, and the error was only discovered on the day before her funeral. In the circumstances, Mrs. Bristeir's daughter reluctantly agreed for her mother's ashes going in plot 14999. However, she later regretted that decision in haste and applied for the exhumation of her mother's ashes and Roland's ashes and their reinterment in the correct plots. The Chancellor found that, owing to the mistake by the burial authority, he was justified in allowing the two exhumations and reinterments.

A Faculty was granted for exhumation. The judgment contains a lengthy discussion as to what may amount to “exceptional circumstances” to justify exhumation.

The Petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her late mother from one plot in the consecrated area of the cemetery and reinter them in another consecrated plot in the same cemetery. The Petitioner's father had died in 2006 and had been buried in the cemetery. In 2007 the Petitioner purchased a plot for her mother near to her father's plot, and when her mother died in 2010 the Petitioner arranged for her mother's remains to be buried in the separate plot which she had purchased, even though her mother had expressed a wish, shortly before she died, to be buried with her husband. The Petitioner subsequently felt guilty at not having carried out her mother's wishes and now wished to have her mother's remains interred with her father's.The Deputy Chancellor decided that there were no special circumstances within the guidelines laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] to justify him in granting a faculty.

The petitioner, after discovering that the remains of her husband (a Roman Catholic of an Italian family) had been interred in a consecrated part of Putney Vale cemetery, wished to have his remains exhumed and reinterred in unconsecrated ground. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that a mistake had occurred, which justified exhumation. He agreed that the exhumation could take place, provided that the remains were reinterred in the unconsecrated churchyard of the the petitioner's church, the Church of Our Lady of Pity and St. Simon Stock in Putney.

The petitioner, a Buddhist, applied for three faculties to permit the exhumation of the remains of his brother, who died in 1991, his grandmother, who died in 1993, and his father, who died in 2014, all Buddhists, from the consecrated area of Putney Vale Cemetery, for reinterment in the unconsecrated part of the cemetery. After the third interment, the petitioner had been advised by his family that, according to Buddhist tradition, it was inappropriate to bury Buddhists in consecrated ground and that it would cause "bad Karma" for the family. The petitioners sought to rectify what his family perceived to be a mistake. Faculties granted by the Chancellor: " I am glad that I have felt able to grant these petitions. The faith of Church of England is very different to the Buddhist faith and its views about the appropriate treatment of the remains of those who have died evidently diverge but the views of Mr Khiet Kham Hong and his family are genuinely held and are appropriately treated with respect.

The petitioner, a Vietnamese, wished to exhume the remains of his father, which had been buried in Putney Vale Cemetery according to Vietnamese Buddhist rites, and to re-inter the remains in another part of the cemetery, next to the grave of his mother. The reason the Petitioner gave for his petition was that, "According to our Vietnamese tradition and culture, the eldest son of the family will have to carry out the exhumation of the deceased father's body 10 years after it was first buried, and then to re-bury it." The Chancellor granted a faculty. The judgment includes a consideration of Articles 8 and 9 of the  European Convention on Human Rights.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the remains of a Buddhist who had been buried in 1994 in a consecrated  part of Southern Cemetery Manchester, so that the remains could be cremated and the ashes placed with the ashes of his wife, who died in 2016, in the Buddhist Temple of Manchester Fo Guan Shan. At the time of the interment in 1994, the family was unaware that the burial was in a Church of England consecrated part of the cemetery, and also at that time there was no facility in Manchester for the storage of cremated remains in accordance with the Buddhist faith.

In her will, Mrs. Florence Pearson impliedly expressed a wish to have her ashes and those of her late husband scattered off Beachy Head. To this end the petitioner, as Mrs. Pearson's executor, applied for permission to have Mr. Pearson's ashes exhumed from the Robin Hood Cemetery. The Chancellor did not find any sufficient exceptional reason to justify him granting a faculty.

The petitioner requested permission to exhume the cremated remains of her late husband from the churchyard at Aby and reinter them in the cemetery in Horncastle. The reasons she gave for wanting to move her father's remains were: (1) the access to the churchyard was over a field, which was difficult in wet weather; (2) rabbits had burrowed under her father's grave; (3) she wished her father's ashes to be moved to a cemetery nearer to her, which would make it easier for her family to visit the grave; and (4) she felt that her late husband was 'alone' in the churchyard at Aby. Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], the Chancellor did not find any special reasons to justify him granting a faculty.

The Chancellor found special reasons to authorise the exhumation from a cemetery of the cremated remains of a Chinese national, and re-interment in another cemetery, where an area of graves was reserved for members of the Chinese community, though the remains were not to go in a family grave as such: "If my decision were otherwise, the Chinese Christian Church might well feel deeply aggrieved that exhumations may be allowed for non-Chinese Christians for burial in family surroundings (albeit in one grave) while for cultural reasons that possibility is denied to their own community." The judgment contains a detailed discussion of the decisions of the appellate courts and the rule of precedent.