Widow Exhumes Husband’s Body After He Was Buried Next to Man Who Ruined His Life

ASH, Kent — In a rare judicial intervention, a High Court judge approved the exhumation and relocation of the remains of David Woods, an 81-year-old husband and father, after it emerged he was buried adjacent to Daniel Thomas, a local career criminal whose actions against Woods’s family provoked the extraordinary remedy. Woods died in the early weeks of 2024 and was laid to rest at the churchyard of St Nicholas in Ash. The arrangement allowed his grave to sit next to Thomas’s plot, a proximity Woods’s widow said would have caused him lasting distress had he known when he was alive. Last week, Woods’s body was exhumed and reburied at a greater distance from Thomas, following a petition from Woods’s widow to the High Court for permission to move the remains.

The Canonry Benefice, which administers St Nicholas and six other churches in the Ash area, said there was no indication at the time of allocation that the plots would place Woods next to the man who would later become a source of deep anguish for his family. After the decision was made, Christine Woods, along with their two daughters, Tracey and Amanda, told the court that visits to the grave would routinely be accompanied by concern about the presence of Thomas’s grave nearby. They said that on occasion they would lay flowers in the graveyard only under the cover of darkness so as not to confront the adjacent plot, describing the proximity as a continual reminder of the harm their family had endured.

The particulars surrounding Thomas’s conduct toward Woods’s family remain contested in public reporting, but the case records indicate a pattern of exploitation and fraud linked to Woods’s relatives. It is understood that Thomas exploited one of Woods’s daughters during a period when she was financially vulnerable, and his actions led to a debt that Woods spent years helping to service. While no charges were brought against Thomas in relation to the Woods family, other matters in which he was convicted provide a window into the kind of man he was perceived to be by neighbors and the court.

A separate account of Thomas’s history shows a known victim—a partially blind pensioner living in Sandwich—whom Thomas allegedly targeted after offering a cleaning service for £15, then returning days later demanding far more money, claiming to have completed work he had not. The pensioner ultimately declined to pay and contacted police, leading to Thomas’s 2015 conviction for fraud at Canterbury Crown Court. Judge James O’Mahony at the sentencing described Thomas’s attempts to justify his conduct as “the most dishonest evidence I have ever heard in this court in more years than I care to remember.” A friend of Thomas told media outlets that in later years he gained weight and died in his sleep, with speculation pointing to organ failure; the friend also suggested Thomas had once been a more attractive figure who attracted affection from Woods’s daughter before his life took a criminal turn.

The High Court’s ruling this month acknowledged that the proximity of the two graves caused Woods’s family “serious distress,” and the judge accepted that the circumstances were exceptional enough to justify a departure from the usual presumption that a final resting place should be kept intact unless there is a clear error or exceptional circumstance. The court did not make findings about the factual merits of the allegations against Thomas but accepted the family’s account of the distress the near-adjacent burial caused them and found that an alternative plot would alleviate grieving difficulties and promote healing.

As a result, Woods’s remains were disinterred on a recent weekday and reburied a short distance away within the same historic cemetery — the maximum distance available given the site’s limited space. The space formerly occupied by Woods has been turf-covered, while Thomas’s grave remains, marked with a plaque and a small stone heart. The new arrangement leaves a small buffer of grave space between the two plots, with room for two intervening graves in the largely historic cemetery.

In remarks accompanying the decision, the judge noted that Woods’s widow had intended to be buried beside her husband in the same double-depth grave when the time came, but the presence of Thomas’s grave altered those plans. The court heard that the family’s petition sought autonomy over their future resting place and that the court weighed the solemn duties of respect for the dead against the family’s demonstrated distress in coming to terms with the current arrangement. The judge stressed that, in Church of England practice, a last resting place is normally a private matter, but exceptional circumstances can justify altering arrangements to mitigate distress and support the grieving process.

The Woods family declined to comment on the High Court decision. Legal observers have described the case as unusual and highly specific in its circumstances, noting that it underscores the complexities involved in cemetery plots and the deeply personal nature of burial rights. The Daily Mail’s reporting on the case highlighted the unusual character of the matter, comparing it to settings from classic literature and noting how the family’s distress framed the legal remedy.

The outcome offers a measure of relief to Christine Woods and her daughters, who said the distance between graves would help them grieve and maintain their family’s sense of closure. Whether the new arrangement will be sufficient to restore a sense of peace remains at the discretion of those who navigate the quiet, centuries-old grounds at St Nicholas in Ash. For now, the family has indicated no further public comment, and court records show the matter has closed with a relocation that respects both legal process and the profound emotional toll of a loved one’s burial beside an adversary.