Exhumations

The petitioner wished to exhume the body of her daughter from Lambeth Cemetery with a view to reinterment in Streatham Park Cemetery. The petitioner's family were Italian Roman Catholics. They had intended after about 10 years to return to Italy and have the remains of the daughter exhumed and reinterred in an above-ground mausoleum in Southern Italy. However, following the opening of a new mausoleum in Streatham Park Cemetery, and a change of plan as to their future, they wished to have the remains buried at Streatham Park Cemetery mausoleum, where many Italians were being buried. As the family of the deceased had intended the original burial to be temporary and had a mistaken view of the consequences of burial in consecrated ground, the Chancellor was persuaded to treat the circumstances as exceptional and to grant a faculty.

The petitioner wished to exhume from the consecrated part of Lambeth Cemetery the remains of her father, interred in 1987. The family is not Christian, but Taoist, and it was not known at the time of the interment that the grave was consecrated. When the petitioner's mother died in 2018, the petitioner felt that she could not have her mother's remains buried in the same grave as her father, owing to the Taoist cultural tradition prohibiting a female being buried on top of the head of the family. There was no available spce for interment of her mother's remains next to those of her father, so the petitioner arranged for her mother's remains to be interred in a double plot in Beckenham Cemetery, assuming that she would be able to have her father's remains exhumed and reinterred in that grave. The Chancellor considered that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her partner James's brother and sister exhumed from the consecrated area of Lambeth Cemetery and reinterred in the same double grave plot which James had reserved in 1991, intending the plot for his mother and himself. The reason for the request was that James's mother had died and her body had been buried in the plot, and James's brother and sister had then died, and their cremated remains had been interred in the plot. This presented a problem when James subsequently died, because for him to be buried in the grave (he did not wish to be cremated), the cremated remains of his brother and sister would have to be lifted in order to allow his burial, with their cremated remains then being returned to the grave. The Chancellor was satisfied that the circumstance were such as to justify the grant of a faculty.

The facts of the case were that the petitioner wished to have the body of his son, who was stillborn in 1998, exhumed from an area of the cemetery set aside for the remains of children and reinterred in a burial chamber in the same cemetery with the body of the petitioner's wife, who had died in 2020, the burial chamber being large enough for the petitioner's remains to be interred in it in due course, thus creating a family grave. In his judgment the Chancellor gives his reasons for having already granted a faculty for exhumation. The judgment contains a discussion of the approach of the courts in the leading cases relating to exhumation.

The petitioner wished to exhume the body of her still-born son who was buried in an oak coffin in the cemetery in 1991 and to have the remains cremated and the ashes placed in a designated rose garden area at Landican Cemetery, where the remains of her own mother and brother had been placed. The petitioner's former partner opposed the exhumation, claiming to be the father of the child and the owner of rights of burial in the grave, whereas the petitioner claimed that he was not the father, and that she had conceived the child as the result of a relationship with another man during a brief separation of the petitioner and her former partner. There were allegations on both sides of interference with items placed on the grave. The Chancellor determined that exhumation was unnecessary and encouraged the parties, with the help of the cemetery manager, to reach an agreement about the future care of the grave.

The body of a man had been found by Manx fishermen 10 nautical miles north of Ramsey, Isle of Man. At the time it was impossible to identify the body and it was buried in Lonan Cemetery. Ten years later it was possible to match retained genetic material from the deceased with that of members of the family of a man from Wicklow in Ireland, who had last been seen in December 2012. The deceased's partner applied for a faculty for exhumation from Lonan Cemetery and reinterment in a cemetery in County Wicklow next to the graves of members of the deceased's family. The Vicar General and Chancellor of the Diocese of Sodor and Man considered that there were exceptional circumstances which justified the grant of a faculty.

Two of the petitioners applied for a faculty for exhumation, in order to establish by DNA testing whether the person it was proposed to be exhumed was their father. The objectors were the brother and sister of the deceased. An Irish Court was holding an award made under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, the deceased having been abused in a residential institution when he was young. Establishing whether the two petitioners were the children of the deceased would determine whether they were entitled to the award. The Chancellor determined that this was an exceptional case where it was appropriate to grant a faculty.

The remains of a child who died at three days old were buried in Loughborough Cemetery. The family subsequently moved to Australia and sought a faculty to allow the exhumation of the baby's remains, so that they might be cremated and placed in a niche in a cemetery in Australia where the parents had reserved niches for their own remains. Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] considered. The Chancellor was unable to find sufficient reason to justify an exception to the general principle of permanence in respect of Christian burial. Petition dismissed.

The petitioners, father and daughter, applied for a faculty to exhume the remains of the father's late wife's cremated remains from a cremated remains plot in the cemetery, for reinterment in a full grave plot in the same cemetery, which had already been purchased by the father and two of his daughters. The father had realised after the interment that he would not be able to be buried with his wife's remains, as he was a Roman Catholic and he believed that the Roman Catholic Church required its members to have full body burial. The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty. The determing factors were: (1) there had not been a long period between the interment and the husband's realisation of the frustration of his desire to be buried with his wife; (2) the husband had had to make a quick decision about a plot for his wife at a traumatic time when he was unable clearly to think through the consequences; and (3) the remains of his wife would be reinterred in a family grave, thus releasing a cremation plot.

The Petitioner applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Chancellor earlier in the year not to allow exhumation. Application dismissed.