AA and BB were married for 40 years and each had children from their previous marriages. When BB died her remains were buried with the remains of her parents in a grave in the churchyard of St X; when AA died in 2016, his ashes were buried in the same grave. In 2014, BB's grand-daughter from her first marriage, CC, alleged that AA had abused her sexually between the ages of 5 and 13. AA's own children rejected CC's allegations, but her parents and relatives accepted them as truthful; the chancellor said that he had no reason to doubt that her account was made in good faith. CC's aunt, DD, had informed AA that he no longer had permission to be buried in the family grave and told the then vicar of St X about her decision, who assured her that AA's remains would not be interred in that grave. Those assurances were repeated by the new vicar of St X after AA died; but in March 2017 he buried AA's ashes in the disputed grave and the interment was authorised retrospectively by faculty. DD petitioned for AA's remains to be exhumed and re-interred in his parents’ grave in another churchyard.

Referring to Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the chancellor noted that the starting point for the exercise of discretion in a petition for exhumation was the presumption of the permanence of Christian burial. Exhumation was to be exceptional and the burden of establishing the special circumstances was on the petitioner. He was satisfied that, in rare cases, the presence of particular remains in a grave could cause distress or conflict and was capable of being an exceptional circumstance justifying exhumation. Each case had to be considered on its own facts, with the court remembering the force of the presumption of permanence, taking care not lightly to regard considerations of distress as being exceptional circumstances for these purposes.

Though there had been a deliberate decision to bury the remains of AA beside his wife of 40 years and her parents, and though the allegations against AA were not accepted by AA's children, he had to take into account that the grave had become a focus of distress and grievance; moreover, because it also held the remains of BB's parents, the presence of AA's remains impacted on BB's siblings as well as on her descendants. It was also of particular note that DD had received prior assurances that AA's remains would not be placed in that grave. It was also highly regrettable that the court had not been given the full picture when authorising AA's interment. In conclusion, he was satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case justified exhumation and re-interment. A faculty was issued accordingly. [Frank Cranmer]