Exhumations

In October 2020, it was noticed that a grave containing the remains of a local couple had been disturbed, suggesting an additional interment without lawful authority, namely, the interment of the ashes of the couple's son, who had taken his own life two years earlier following the breakdown of his marriage. The incumbent applied for exhumation of the cremated remains, as they had been unlawfully interred, and the deceased’s four siblings applied for custody of the remains, so that they could be interred in land where the deceased had wished his remains to be interred. The deceased’s widow denied that her husband's ashes had been interred in the grave, and refused to attend the hearing. On the basis of the evidence at the hearing, the Chancellor was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the ashes interred were those of the deceased sibling and she granted a faculty for exhumation and for custody of the ashes to pass to the surviving siblings for reinterment.

The petitioner wished to have her late husband buried in the grave of his first wife, which also contained the cremated remains of his first wife’s mother. In order for the burial to take place, it would be necessary for the cremated remains of the first wife’s mother to be temporarily exhumed and then returned to the same grave after the interment of the body of the petitioner’s husband. The Area Dean did not support the petition. He believed that exhumation would be contrary to the theological presumption of the permanence of Christian burial. The Chancellor, however, considered that there was case law which supported an exception to the normal presumption of permanence in these circumstances and he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the exhumation of the mortal remains of the baby son of one of the petitioners and reinterment in Ireland. The baby had lived less than three months. The family had lived in Ireland for 20 years and had a double grave plot reserved in their local churchyard, which could accommodate six burials. The father was suffering from terminal cancer and wished to be buried with his child in the family plot. For this and other reasons, the Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty.

A widow and her daughters applied for permission to exhume the body of the widow’s late husband from the grave which had been reserved for him and his wife and to reinter it in another grave in the same churchyard. The reason given for the petition was that at about the same time as the burial of the widow’s husband another person had been buried in an immediately adjoining grave and it was alleged that that person had financially abused and exploited one of the daughters of the widow, which caused great distress to the family, whenever they visited the grave of the widow’s husband. The Commissary General granted a faculty: "While this may not amount to a serious psychiatric or psychological problem in the medical sense, I nonetheless give weight to the impact of the status quo on the wellbeing of [the] family."

The petitioner's mother died in a motor accident in 2000. The petitioner's father had been in such a state of shock that he had left it to a family friend to arrange the funeral. Notwithstanding that the father and his three daughters were all atheists, the family friend arranged for burial in the consecrated churchyard at Charlwood. Each member of the family had never been happy with this and had only recently found it possible to discuss the matter together. They now wished the mother's body to be exhumed and cremated, and the ashes scattered elsewhere. The Deputy Chancellor considered the guiding principles laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299 and concluded that this was an exceptional case where exhumation should be allowed: " ... I am persuaded that there was a fundamental mistake of intention in this case ... For a family of conscientious atheists, Christian burial was not the right choice. The daughters have tried very hard to honour and make sense of their mother’s memory through the medium of her grave, but they reached a point whereby the thing which should provide some solace was doing the opposite."

Interments of two family members had taken place in the same grave in 2012 and 2013. After the second interment there had been only a foot of earth over the second coffin, and in the course of time the second coffin had become exposed. An application was made for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of both coffins from the family grave and for re-interment of both coffins in the same grave in another part of the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that there were special circumstances to justify him permitting both coffins to be exhumed (even though the first coffin could have been left in situ with a sufficient covering of earth) and for them both to be re-interred in a new family grave.

The petitioner applied on behalf of her mother to have the cremated remains of her father exhumed from his burial plot and reinterred in another plot. Interments of cremated remains in the churchyard normally allowed for 18 inches of spacing between memorial plaques, so that visitors did not tread on memorials. At the time of the interment, the proximity of the petitioner's father's grave plot to neighbouring plots had been obscured by a green carpet laid over the neighbouring plots. It later became apparent that there was insufficient space to tend the plaque laid on the plot without stepping on neighbouring plaques, and there was evidence that the petitioner's father's plaque had been trodden on. This was very distressing for his widow. The Chancellor considered that the problem had arisen because of an unfortunate mistake as to spacing by those responsible for laying out the plots and he considered therefore that the granting of a faculty was justified.

The cremated remains of a child who died within hours of a premature birth in the 1980s had been interred in the churchyard. The petitioners (the father of the child and his three daughters) wished to have the remains exhumed with a view to them being reinterred in the father's garden. The father's wife had expressed a wish before her death to be buried in the garden with the remains of her deceased child. The Chancellor could find no justification for allowing the exhumation and reinterment of the child's remains as proposed, but he granted a faculty authorising exhumation, provided that permission could be obtained for the remains of the child and both parents to be interred in the churchyard of the church where the mother's funeral had been conducted or in some other consecrated ground.

The Chancellor determined that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the proposed exhumation of the cremated remains of a young man from the churchyard in Kenilworth for reinterment in the same grave as his late parents (or in the next grave) in a churchyard in Norfolk, the Chancellor noting similarities between the circumstamces in this case and those in the case of Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299.

The petitioner sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of each of her parents from the churchyard of St. Nicholas Radford (the church itself having been demolished), so that the remains could be taken to Oakley Wood Crematorium for interment or scattering next to a family memorial bench commemorating the petitioner’s husband. The cremated remains of the petitioner’s mother and father had been interred in 1991 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner stated that she found it too far to travel to the churchyard. The Crematorium advised that its grounds were unconsecrated; that only scattering was allowed; and that no permission could be given for relocation of the memorial stone. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Difficulty in travelling to a grave was not a sufficiently exceptional circumstance to justify an exception to the normal presumption of permanence of burial. Moreover, the petitioner’s father had clearly wished his cremated remains to be buried in the same grave as the remains of his wife, rather than be scattered.