Councils secure High Court order for disposal of ashes of Ian Brady

Two local authorities have secured an order that the body of Ian Brady, one of the Moors Murderers, should be decently disposed of without delay.

Brady died on 15 May 2017. His will appointed solicitor Robin Makin as his executor.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and Tameside Metropolitan Council became concerned that five months on Mr Makin had failed to make proper arrangements for the disposal.

In Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (& Ors) v Robin Makin (& Ors) Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court, said he was satisfied that it was “both necessary and expedient” for the matter to be taken out of Mr Makin’s hands if Brady’s body was to be disposed of quickly, lawfully and decently.

“Even after a hearing that has lasted for 1½ days, the parties have not been able to agree precisely how the deceased’s body should be disposed of,” the judge said.

“Things have simply gone on far too long. There is no reason to suppose, taking into account the tone and content of the correspondence, that agreement will be reached between these parties in short order if the court does not impose a solution. Feelings seem to run high on all sides, but most importantly the public interest demands that the matter is concluded swiftly.”

He noted that section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction over estates allowed it in this case to give directions as to who should dispose of the deceased body, and as to how it should be disposed of.

Sir Geoffrey said that taking into account all the competing positions, the overwhelming factor in this case was the public interest. “The deceased’s wishes are relevant, but they do not outweigh the need to avoid justified public indignation and actual unrest.”

He added that it was not doubted that Mr Makin could be trusted.

“The claimants were right to seek to ensure that there is a lawful and decent disposal of the deceased’s body without causing justified public indignation or unrest. I do not think Mr Makin has been justified in being so secretive about how he was intending to dispose of the deceased’s body,” the judge said.

“Had he discussed the matter openly with the claimants and with Sefton Borough Council and given clear undertakings that he was not intending to scatter the deceased’s ashes in their areas, these proceedings might have been avoided.  Even now, he has refused to say what he intends to do with the ashes if he is allowed custody of them.”

Mr Makin had offered to tell the judge alone, but not the other parties to the proceedings. “That was not good enough,” Sir Geoffrey said. “I refused to be the only person to be told because I could not then have heard any submissions as to the propriety of the arrangements he proposed.”

The Chancellor concluded that Mr Makin could not be entrusted with the ashes for disposal.

“Even if I were to limit their disposal to private ground, against his wishes, that private ground might be somewhere where public access was possible. Even the process of allowing Mr Makin to take possession of the ashes is fraught with potential difficulty. It does not matter that those difficulties might not be of his own making. He said he only intended to tell one other (unidentified) person how he would dispose of the ashes. But there remains the possibility that his plans would be discovered, and there could be public disorder if a member of the public sought to stop Mr Makin doing what he wanted to do with the ashes.”

The judge said it was unfortunate that Sefton Council was no longer able to arrange the ashes’ disposal, but noted that instead an officer of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council had said that she would do so. Sir Geoffrey said he was satisfied that that this was the best proposal available.

Sir Geoffrey also declined to permit the playing of the fifth movement of the Symphony Fantastique at the cremation as Mr Makin had requested.

As the composer’s programme notes described, the theme and subject of the piece meant legitimate offence would be caused to the families of the deceased’s victims once it became known it had been played, he said.

It was not suggested by Mr Makin that the deceased had requested any other music to be played or any other ceremony to be performed, and in those circumstances, the judge proposed to direct that there be no music and no ceremony.

The judge directed under section 116 that an unnamed individual be appointed as administrator of the estate of the deceased for the limited purpose of disposing of the body of the deceased.