Since the discovery of Richard III’s remains in a Leicester car park last year, a legal challenge from relatives of the deceased king has begun over where his body should finally come to rest.
An archaeological excavation licence was granted to Leicester University by the Ministry Of Justice (MOJ) which stated the remains of Richard III should be laid to rest in the Jewry Wall museum in Leicester or St Martin’s Cathedral. This has not sat well with many of Richard III’s distant relatives who seek to challenge the licence and have the king’s remains buried in York Minster. The challenge to the licence is being brought on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which guarantees the right to private and family life. The specific challenge is that when granting the licence the MOJ failed to consult with the distant relatives regarding the terms of the licence. It is on this basis that the relatives are seeking a judicial review action against the decision of the MOJ that the remains of Richard III are to stay in Leicester.
This appears to be very flimsy ground on which to bring a judicial review action, not least of all because Richard III died well before the principles of the ECHR were even conceived. Can it be said that a 500 year old relative can be classed as ‘family’ for the purposes of the ECHR? Strictly speaking the distant relatives may well be classed as ‘family’ for the purposes of the ECHR but that may not be the key word here. The ECHR protects the right to respect for family life. The words ‘respect’ and ‘life’ appear to be fundamental here, and it would be difficult to argue that the burial location of a 500 year old relative affects the family life of such a distant relative, particularly where this person has had no bearing on the ‘family life’ of the distant relative. The word ‘respect’ also means the right is not absolute and some interference with the right can be justified. It is therefore unlikely a court would find the lack of consultation with very distant relatives of Richard III and interference with this right.
The flimsy concept of family life in this case and the fact Article 8 is not an absolute right suggests the challenge brought by the relatives is far beyond the scope of what the ECHR was designed to protect, namely the fundamental rights applicable to all human beings. It is not a fundamental right within the scope of the ECHR to determine where a 500 year old deceased relative is buried and it would be staggering if a court would find otherwise.
