Report comment

All the supporters of Hassel, including those who think the chief coroner's comments are "unwarranted" and "poorly thought out" have yet to explain how their position is compatible with Article 9. of the ECHR.

It seems to me that a great number of the commentators on this issue are only comfortable with human rights insofar as it displays animus to, denigrates or degrades the status of religious observances.

They point to the inconvenience that families without religious requirements for same day burial suffer. That is an inconvenience, not distress; and that inconvenience is not protected by Article 9. Even if it were the case that there would be some small inconvenience to the public by the operation of an expedited service that would be lawful. Most the commentators who complain about the cab rank rule cite anecdotal evidence of it taking weeks to get the body released. That is because the circumstances of death were not straightforward and required additional autopsies, investigations, and inquests. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

However, that won't be the case. Signing off the release of a body in circumstances which are not suspicious takes 5 minutes at most. There is no inconvenience caused to others by expediting a tiny number of cases, given that the system is never operating at precisely 100% efficiency with precise match between the amount of work and the staff available. This can be evidenced by the fact that the waiting times are not steadily growing. There is capacity to accommodate religious needs.