AS THERE is an opinion that the remains of Richard III should be kept in York you may be interested in my conclusion that his remains must have been illegally exhumed.
The reason for that conclusion is that archaeologists obtained an exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, but the law on licences has no relevance to car parks and so on when previously unknown burials are discovered.
That much has been crystal clear since court cases in 1867 and 1880. So the question needs to be asked: “Why is that not clear to the Ministry of Justice?”
The licence must be legally invalid. That means the exhumation was in breach of common law. The penalty for that is unlimited.
If the police prosecute, that would stop the destruction of many graves created within living memory, e.g. former burial grounds of Baptists, Methodists, Quakers and so on if relatives own what is referred to as the “burial rights” in those graves.
Richard III “would then have the legacy of having served the national interest after death”.
John Bradfield, Writer on bereavement law, Knox Road, Harrogate.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel