Exhumations

The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of his father's cremated remains from the family plot of his mother's family and to reinter the remains in a new plot in which the petitioner's mother's cremated remains could be interred in due course. The Petitioner's mother had not realised at the time of her husband's death that there was only one space left in her family's plot. This had caused the petitioner's mother a lot of distress since the interment, as she wished her remains in due course to be buried with her husband's remains. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the circumstances of the present case were such as to warrant an exception to the general rule that human remains, once interred, should not be disturbed, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

A father and son had died together in 1977 and their ashes had been interred in a public cemetery. The father's widow applied for a faculty to authorise exhumation of the remains and their reinterment in a private burial ground with a view to creating a family grave where the remains of other members of the family could be interred. The Chancellor received reports from a psychotherapist and a general practitioner that the exhumation and reinterment would be beneficial to the mental well-being of one of the widow's daughters. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the remains of the father and son, after such a long period, could be identified and fully removed.

In 1984 the cremated remains of RM were interred in a churchyard. RM’s widow died in 2022 or 2023, and her cremated remains were still retained by her daughter. The daughter now wished to scatter the remains of both parents under a tree in her garden, in order to fulfil the wishes of her mother. Following the guidelines in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, Court of Arches, the Chancellor could not find any special circumstances that made this case sufficiently ‘exceptional’ to permit an exception to the rule of permanence of burial.

On the day before an interment of ashes, a relative of the deceased pointed out to the curate that the hole prepared for the ashes was not in the right plot. After consultation between the curate and the rector, a hole was dug in the correct plot. At a service for the interment of the ashes, the family left after the ashes (inside a bag) had been placed in the correct plot which had been dug and before the plot was filled in. The verger subsequently insisted that the ashes were in the wrong plot and, after consultation with the rector and the curate, the ashes were interred in the first plot. When the family was informed that the ashes had been moved, they said that the plot where the ashes had been place at the interment service was the correct plot. The rector, without consulting the archdeacon or the Diocesan Registry, dug up the ashes and interred them in the correct plot. He then applied for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor accepted that there had been a mistake, but pointed out that an exhumation should not take place without proper authority, and he ordered the rector to pay the costs of the preparation of the judgment.

The petitioner wished to have her mother's body exhumed from a consecrated burial ground in the Diocese of Chichester and reinterred in a consecrated burial ground in another diocese. The reason given by the petitioner was that the proximity of her mother’s grave to those of close family members of her ex-husband, who had been violent and abusive towards the petitioner and her children, was affecting her mental health and made it stressful for the petitioner and her children to visit the grave. There was medical evidence to support the Petitioner's state of health. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that there were special circumstances which justified the making of an exception from the theological norm that Christian burial is final. In view of the sensitivity of the matter, the Chancellor decided to make the judgment anonymous and required that it should not be published until after the exhumation and reinterment had been carried out.

Two petitions and two pending petitions relating to the exhumation of cremated remains, currently stored in a municipal cemetery on a temporary basis in non-biodegradable urns beneath plaques, on the expiration of the initial licences.  The chancellor considered the need for a faculty in such a situation, and indicated that he would be minded to grant a faculty where it could be shown that the original interment was never intended to be permanent. Faculties would also be granted in two cases on the basis of reinterment in a family grave elsewhere.

A faculty was sought to permit the exhumation of the remains of a husband, in order that they might be interred with the remains of his wife in another grave in the same cemetery. His wife had expressed a wish in her will to be buried with her husband, but her husband's remains had been interred in a family grave where there had previously been three interments and there was no more room for further interments. The Chancellor determined that the circumstances justified an exception to the general rule against exhumation, so as to create a family grave in which the remains of both husband and wife could be buried together.

The petitioners, who were Romanian nationals and Christians, were living in Worcester when their child was tragically stillborn in 2020. The child’s remains were interred in Astwood Cemetery. The petitioners subsequently moved back to Romania, to live near their extended families. They now wished to have the child’s remains exhumed and reinterred according to the rites of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Applying the tests set out in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, Court of Arches, the Chancellor determined that this was an exceptional case where exhumation should be allowed: “The fact that the plan is for CD’s remains to be placed in a Romanian Orthodox churchyard with suitable rites, and that this churchyard is one where other members of CD’s family are buried supports the petitioner’s application, as it is clear that the remains will be treated with appropriate dignity and reverence, and that they will be buried in a ‘family grave’ in the wider sense of in a churchyard where other family members are buried.”

The petitioners wished to exhume their father's cremated remains and to scatter the ashes with the ashes of the petitioner's mother (recently deceased) at a favourite spot in the Lake District. The petitioners' father had expressed a wish to have his ashes scattered in the Lake District, but the petitioners had agreed with their mother at the time of her husband's funeral to bury the ashes in the Cemetery. Now that their mother had died, the petitioner's wished to comply with their father's wishes, which their mother had agreed to before she died. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. In accordance with the principles laid down by the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], remains should only be exhumed in exceptional circumstances. The petitioners could not argue that there had been a mistake in dealing with their father's ashes as they and their mother had agreed to interment in the Cemetery. A change of mind as to a place of burial did not amount to an exceptional circumstance. The proposal to scatter the ashes was an additional reason for refusing a faculty.

Owing to a mistake on the part of the grave digger, the remains of the husband of one of the petitioners had been buried at single depth, whereas a double depth grave had been requested. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to allow the existing coffin to be exposed and temporarily moved in order to allow the grave to be dug deeper.