Exhumations

The petitioners' father died in 1993. His body was cremated and his ashes were interred in the churchyard. The petitioners' mother died in 2021. The petitioners wished to fulfil their mother's request before her death that, regretting that she had had her husband's ashes interred in the churchyard, she wished her husband's ashes to be exhumed following her death and scattered with her own ashes in a favourite place. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. There were no sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify an exhumation, particularly after such a long lapse of time between the two deaths.

In 1980, the petitioner's late father's ashes were interred in a cemetery in Loughborough. In 1985, the ashes were exhumed and reinterred in the churchyard at East Leake. The petitioner now wished to have his father's ashes re-exhumed and reinterred in another part of the churchyard, with the ashes of the petitioner's mother, who had recently died. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional factors to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation. The canopy of a cypress tree had grown over the grave, leaving only one metre clearance above the grave; the area around the grave was overgrown; and the grave was likely to be affected by the tree's roots.

The petitioner wished to have her late husband's cremated remains exhumed and reinterred in Scotland, on a property that the deceased had acquired in 1962. Four relatives and a friend of the deceased objected. They contended that the petitioner did not like them putting floral tributes and cards on the grave and had been observed removing flowers and cards, and that the petitioner's motive for moving the remains to Scotland was to put them where the objectors would find it difficult to put tributes on the deceased's grave. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment and urged restraint on both sides, advising the objectors not to put cards on the grave and expressing the hope that the petitioner would not to remove flowers placed by the objectors.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation. The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his daughter (who had died in 2007 aged 45) from Northolt churchyard and have the ashes scattered at Breakspear Crematorium. Applying the guidance given in the 2001 decision of the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor did not consider that the reasons given by the petitioner for exhumation - that the petitioner's daughter's grave was neglected, and that the family had moved to near the Breakspear Crematorium, where the petitioner and his wife intended to have their own ashes scattered in due course - were not sufficiently exceptional as to justify a departure from the general rule that permanence of burial in consecrated ground should be regarded as the norm. Also, if exhumation were allowed, the ashes would not be reinterred in consecrated ground.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to permit the opening of a grave and the opening of a casket, in order to permit the petitioners' mother's wedding ring to be placed with the ashes of the petitioners' parents, which had been interred six weeks previously.

The cremated remains of a member of the family concerned in this matter had recently been interred in her parents' grave. The interment had been arranged by certain members of the family, who did not discuss the location of the interment with other members of the family, who, as it turned out, objected to the last deceased being interred in her parents' grave, and they applied for a faculty for exhumation. The Chancellor ruled that the interment should not have taken place in the parents' grave without the agreement of all of the next of kin, and accordingly granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment elsewhere.

The petitioners wished to exhume the ashes of their mother, Mrs. Rose, from Roughan churchyard and reinter the ashes in Beyton churchyard. At the time of her death, Mrs. Rose’s children had decided to inter their mother’s ashes in her parents’ grave at Rougham. Mrs. Rose’s siblings had been ‘furious’ that the funeral had taken place and that their sister’s ashes had been interred in their parents’ grave without them being informed, and they refused to accept an apology from the petitioners. Owing to the family tension, the petitioners felt that the only solution was to exhume Mrs. Rose’s ashes and inter them in a different churchyard with the ashes of her husband, who had recently died. Mrs. Rose’s siblings at first objected to the exhumation, but later withdrew their objection. The Chancellor considered that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to allow a family grave to be created for the remains of Mrs. Rose and her husband.

The petitioner was a world-renowned influenza virologist with a particular interest in the 1918 Spanish Influenza strain, a type of avian influenza. In view of the concern in 2007 regarding the avian H5N1 virus, the petitioner wished to exhume the body of Sir Mark Sykes, who had died from Spanish Influenza in Paris in 1919. Samples from previous victims of the 1918 disease had been of insufficient quality for the petitioner's current research to try to ascertain how the 1918 virus spread in the body, which might help in research to find better clinical treatment for avian viruses. The fact that Sir Mark had been buried at Sledmere in a sealed lead coffin raised the likelihood of better samples being found for the petitioner's research. The Chancellor granted a faculty. The prospect of finding a way of combatting the H5N1 virus would be of public benefit and was a sufficiently exceptional reason to displace the normal presumption against exhumation. 

The cremated remains of two parishioners had been interred in a double depth grave plot in the churchyard in February 2024. In July 2024, the cremated remains of another parishioner were interred. It was later discovered that the second interment was so close to the first that there was insufficient space between them to fit a standard-size ledger stone over the top of each buried casket. This situation caused distress to both families. The Team Vicar applied for a faculty for the exhumation of the second casket and for it to be reinterred in another place in the churchyard. The Chancellor was satisfied that the mistake as to proximity of the second interment to the first was an exceptional circumstance which justified the grant of a faculty.

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her mother and reinter them in the same churchyard with the remains of her father. It had been intended that the plot into which the petitioner's mother's remains had been interred should have been a double grave, but when the petitioner's father died it was found to be impossible to add the father's remains to the grave, due to insufficient depth. Also, the grave could not be enlarged due to concrete obstructions. Therefore the petitioner's father's remains had to be put in a nearby grave. The Chancellor considered that a mistake had been made, in that those digging the mother's grave should have been aware that a double plot was required and that the plot itself was not suitable for a double interment. He therefore granted a faculty of the exhumation of the mother's remains and their reinterment in the grave of her husband.