Chief Coroners Guidance for Coroners on the Bench – Updated 10 May 2026 here
A series of updates to the Chief Coroners ‘Bench Book’ have just been published. As the Chief Coroner made clear at its initial publication her Guidance for Coroners on the Bench is intended to be an internet based resource. Printing a hard copy may not only unnecessarily kill trees but also risks you overlooking the various updates to the ‘Bench Book’ as they come on stream.
One of these updates now deals with the rare (but not wholly exceptional) circumstances of a dispute arising between family members as to whom a body should be released, or how the body should be respectfully disposed of. The updated Guidance proposes that the coroner should first identify if the deceased has made a will and who is the executor of the will. Where there is an executor, the body should be released to the executor to make the appropriate arrangements in accordance with the deceased’s wishes.
Coroners may on occasion need to make a decsion between family factions and the need to avoid delay should be the impetus for coroners doing so. Expediting the funeral having been identified as “the most important consideration” in Hartshorne v Gardner,[1] indeed the key theme emanating from all the relevant authorities focuses on avoiding delay and ensuring the dignified and decent disposal of the body.
If there is no will
If there is no will the entitlement and duty to arrange disposal under common law will fall upon the administrators of the deceased’s estate. However, the practical reality is that the time taken for administration to be obtained usually means thatletters of administration will not have been formally issued at the time the funeral is to be arranged. In the absence of a will or letters of administration, the coroner will need to decide, and indicate, to whom they intend to release the body.This person will generally be the person or persons with the greatest entitlement to be the deceased’s administrator as determined by the ‘Rules of Intestacy’[2] which set out a strict order of priority regarding who can apply for letters of administration if someone dies without a will. This generally mirrors the inheritance rules, starting with any survivingspouse or civil partner. The deceased’s children, come before the deceased’s parents; then their siblings, nieces and nephews come before their grandparents; down to uncles, aunts and cousins, with the Treasury Solicitor handling bona vacantia (ownerless property) if no-one else qualifies.
Settling the dispute
Usually there is no dispute about to whom the body should be released to arrange a funeral or cremation, but there can beoccasions where two executors, or if the deceased died intestate, two or more factions of a bereaved family are in dispute.
Where agreement cannot be reached, the coroner will have to make a decision. Firstly, the coroner should consider if there are any special circumstances which weigh in favour of varying the order of priority set out in r.22 NCPR. Secondly,they need to ask is whether it is necessary or expedient to do so. It would be a rare case for both of those questions to be answered in the affirmative, although in Borrows v HM Coroner for Preston,[3] Cranston J determined that when a deceased person’s wishes are known, those wishes are capable (if the high threshold is met) of overriding the standard, rigid hierarchy of relationships set out in the rules of intestacy.
The coroner should make a decision
The Guidance emphasises that a coroner can, and indeed should, make the decision whether and to whom to release a body. However, this is a decision that may be subject to Judicial Review or a claim under s116 Senior Courts Act 1981. Therefore, if a coroner is aware of a dispute over who should take possession of a body, there is High Court dicta to support the view that the coroner should ensure the different factions are notified of the intended release before it takes place and if proceedings are brought, no release should be authorised unless and until those High Court proceedings have concluded
Factors to consider
In Anstey v Mundle3, the High Court observed that in determining to whom a deceased’s body should be released forthe purposes of its burial, the following non-exhaustive factors were relevant:
- the deceased’s wishes;
- the reasonable requirements and wishes of the family who were left to grieve;
- the location with which the deceased had been most closely connected; and
- most importantly, that the body be disposed of with all proper respect and decency and, if possible, without further delay.
Happily, in many cases of dispute the coroner giving an indication of their decision may assist the bereaved to come to an amicable agreement about dignified disposal without recourse to the Courts.
Footnotes
[1] [2008] EWHC 3675 (Ch), [2008] Fam Law 985, [2013] Inquest LR 1.
[2] rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (‘r.22 NCPR’)
[3] [2008] EWHC 1387 (QB), [2008] Inquest Law Reports 72