header-logo header-logo

05 March 2018
Issue: 7784 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Controversy over ‘cab rank’ burials

The Chief Coroner, Judge Mark Lucraft QC has taken the unprecedented step of backing a judicial review against his colleague’s decision to apply a ‘cab rank rule’ to burials.

The ‘cab rank’ approach ignores religious concerns for early burial—Jewish and Islamic beliefs require the deceased to be buried on the same day as death or as soon as possible thereafter. Instead, no one burial can be given priority over another.

Judge Lucraft’s name has been added to the legal action, which will be heard by a Divisional Court at the end of this month, and he has publicly criticised the decision, by Senior Coroner for Inner North London, Mary Hassell, as ‘over rigid’, ‘unlawful’ and in breach of Art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious beliefs.

Hassell made the rule change in October 2017. The judicial review is being brought by the Adath Yisroel Burial Society.

However, Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, expressed support for Hassell. He said grieving families had regularly exerted pressure on Hassell’s officers to release bodies, leading her to make the rule change.

In a letter to the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor in January, he said: ‘By prioritising those who give religion as their reason for a quick burial, those who want rapid burials for other reasons are being unfairly treated. I trust you will ensure that the judicial response to this matter is not unduly influenced by those who shout the loudest.’

Doctors report deaths to coroners for various reasons, for example, where the death was sudden and unexplained or violent or where the deceased was not seen by a doctor during their final illness. The coroner may decide a post-mortem is needed to discover the cause of death. After this, if the cause is still unknown, they may hold an inquest.

Issue: 7784 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll