Background

In Re Ormskirk Parish Churchyard [2026] ECC Liv 2, Mr and Mrs Newsome petitioned for a faculty to exhume the remains of their son Adam, who had died of cancer in 2007, aged 19. Their intention was to rebury him in West Lancashire Cemetery [1 & 3]. Their reasons for making the application were that the churchyard and the church grounds had become

“a gathering place for youths indulging in antisocial behaviour, and perhaps more concerning drug abuse. There is anecdotal evidence that needles and other drug paraphernalia have been found lying in and around the gravestones in the churchyard” [5],

This caused them considerable distress, and Mrs Newsome found that visiting her son’s grave made her feel “intimidated and unsafe” [7]. The Newsomes said that it was also becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the grave to an acceptable standard [8].

The judgment

HHJ Wood KC, Ch noted that the principles that he had to apply to questions of exhumation and reburial were set out in two judgments of the Court of Arches and the Chancery Court of York: Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] 4 All ER 482 and Re Christchurch Alsager [1999] Fam 142, and a consistory court would only grant a faculty for an exhumation in exceptional circumstances and for good and proper reasons:

“A change of mind or a general desire that family members be buried together is usually insufficient, and a delay caused by the passage of time will make it less likely that such exhumation will be allowed, without very compelling reasons” [11].

Moreover,

“… the importance of the permanence of Christian burial cannot be understated. The peaceful rest of the departed is to be of paramount importance. Further, a consistory court should not be swayed out of the undoubted sympathy which is held for the family of those who have passed away and the additional grief which might be caused by the refusal of an application for exhumation” [12].

In essence, the justification for the application was the distress caused to Mr and Mrs Newsome by the allegedly poorly maintained churchyard and the antisocial behaviour that they encountered when they visited their son’s grave, and the Chancellor had not been able to identify any previous case in which a consistory court had found antisocial behaviour to be a good and proper reason for departing from the principle of the permanence of Christian burial [14]. Further, if he were to order an exhumation in this particular case, it might set a precedent that would make it difficult to refuse any other exhumation application made in similar circumstances [14]. With regret, he refused the application [15].