WHEN the gravedigger had been given misinformation in regards to the depth of the grave, and the burial had then taken place, there was an exceptional reason for granting a school to allow exhumation and reinterment at the proper depth in the identical plot.
The Consistory Court of Lincoln due to this fact granted the college, but asked the parish council for an assurance that there could be a review of the means by which gravediggers got instructions, in order that such a serious mistake wouldn’t occur again.
The petitioners for the college were the clerk to the parish council, Julie Moss, and Melissa Shennan, the widow of the deceased, Christopher Giles Shennan, who died on 13 August 2024. His stays were interred in a consecrated plot at Barrowby burial ground on 13 September.
The gravedigger had been given misinformation to dig a single-depth grave when it must have been a double-depth grave. The faculty was sought to allow the digging of a double-depth grave at the identical plot. That required a trench to be dug in order that the coffin may very well be moved to at least one side to be able to enable the lower depth to be dug, after which for the coffin to be interred at the proper level. The parish council can be liable for all additional costs incurred.
The Chancellor, the Worshipful Judge Mark Bishop, said that the principle of the permanence of Christian burial may very well be departed from provided that there have been special circumstances that justified an exception to the principle that the deceased was laid to rest in September this 12 months, and his stays mustn’t now be disturbed.
In the Blagdon Cemetery case, the Court of Arches identified various aspects which may support a submission that special circumstances had arisen that permitted the stays to be exhumed. Those aspects included where there had been a mistake made in regards to the burial.
Where there had been a straightforward error in administration, corresponding to burial within the flawed grave, or on the flawed depth, the Court of Arches held that faculties for exhumation could readily be granted. Of more difficulty, the Chancellor said, was where there was a failure to grasp or appreciate the importance of burial in consecrated ground in a municipal cemetery.
The Chancellor was satisfied, nevertheless, that exceptional reasons did exist on this case for an exhumation to be permitted. There had plainly been a mistake within the depth of the grave being dug, and that might now be remedied by a school.
The Chancellor said that, while it was recognised that errors could occur, “an error that requires a school to exhume and reinter so soon after a funeral is a serious mistake which can . . . have been extremely distressing” for the widow and family of the deceased. The Chancellor asked for Ms Moss’s “assurance that the means by which gravediggers are given such essential information before they dig has been reviewed, and that such a serious mistake is not going to occur again”.
