The incumbent petitioned for a faculty for the exhumation of what appeared to be cremated remains and their re-interment elsewhere in the churchyard. The remains had been discovered having been clandestinely interred directly in the ground under a square of turf lifted from an existing grave, from where they had been exhumed under an interim faculty to preserve their integrity. A son of the couple buried there had quite recently committed suicide and his widow had had custody of his cremated remains. The remaining siblings were convinced that the discovered remains were those of their brother but the widow said that she had previously scattered the ashes in accordance with his wishes. The remaining siblings supported the exhumation of the ashes from their parents’ grave but wished them to be interred on land which the deceased brother had farmed for many years.

The court noted that re-interment in the churchyard would be acceptable regardless of the identity of the deceased. However, the remains could only be released to the siblings if the court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that they were those of the deceased brother. Contemporaneous and circumstantial evidence both cast significant doubt on the reliability of the widow's written statement and the court concluded that the remains were indeed those of the deceased brother.

The united view of the remaining siblings, coupled with the clandestine and illegal nature of the interment, amounted to a special reason justifying the exhumation. The widow, as the deceased's next-of-kin, maintained that the remains were not those of the deceased and did not seek the return of the ashes to her care. Being satisfied that the remains would be treated with reverence and dignity, and that the necessary consents of the relevant landowner and farmer for their re-interment had already been obtained, the court ordered that the remains be released into the custody of the deceased's brother. [DW]