The claimant argued that the restrictions on open air cremations as required by his Hindu belief was unreasonable and infringed his human rights.
Held: The burning of a body otherwise than at a crematorium was a criminal offence. The claimant had established that open air cremation was a sufficiently serious element of his religious beliefs to raise an issue under human rights. However the infringement and limitation of the claimant’s rights were justified under article 9.2 because they were imposed to protect public morals and the rights and freedoms of others, who would find such actions offensive.
Cranston J
[2009] EWHC 978 (Admin), Times 18-May-2009, [2009] NPC 68
Bailii
Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008 No 2841) 13, European Convention on Human Rights 9, Cremation Act 1902 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ghai, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle City Council and Others CA 10-Feb-2010
The claimant appealed against a refusal of an order refusing him permission to use land for the purposes of an open air cremations, as required by his religion.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The 1902 Act should be interpreted generously in its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.343065