The petitioner sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of her parents from a consecrated Garden of Rest, where they had been interred in 1991 and 2001, respectively. A memorial stone was placed over the plot inscribed ‘Eternally together’. Subsequently, the church had ceased to be a place of worship and was demolished, although the Garden of Rest remained consecrated. The petitioner sought to relocate the remains to Oakley Wood Crematorium, citing difficulty travelling to the churchyard and expressing dissatisfaction with the upkeep of the Garden of Rest and alleged anti-social behaviour in the area. Although not disclosed either to the incumbent or to the court, the petitioner’s intention was to scatter the ashes in the crematorium grounds, which were unconsecrated.

Applying the principles established in Re Christ Church Alsager and Re Blagdon Cemetery, the court reviewed numerous authorities where exhumation had been permitted (mistakes in burial location, changes in circumstances affecting the grave itself, creation of family graves, medical conditions affecting the bereaved) and where it had been refused (changes of mind, convenience, intention to scatter previously buried remains).

The court found that while the demolition of the church building was unusual, it was not truly exceptional. There had been no mistake in the original choice to inter the remains in consecrated ground, as evidenced by the later decision to inter the father’s remains in the same plot and the memorial stone bearing the legend ‘Eternally together’. This clearly indicated an intention for permanent burial rather than scattering. The Garden of Rest remained consecrated and dedicated to the memory of those interred there. The petitioner’s principal reason was her difficulty in travelling to the place of interment, which amounted to convenience rather than exceptional circumstances.

Scattering of the ashes would be contrary to the apparent wishes of the deceased for burial together. There were also deficiencies in the proposed arrangements, including lack of professional supervision for the exhumation and the absence of suitable provision for the memorial stone, which would risk confusion about the deceased’s final resting place. Both petitions were dismissed.