Ecclesiastical court judgments – December

Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during December 2022

Nine consistory court judgments were circulated in December and featured: Reordering, extensions and other building works, Exhumation, and Churchyards and burials. This summary also includes CDM Decisions and SafeguardingPrivy Council Business, and CFCE Determinations, as well as links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.

Reordering, extensions and other building works

Removal and replacement of pews

Re St. Mary the Virgin Primrose Hill [2022] ECC Lon 2 The petition sought permission for the introduction of 150 new upholstered chairs of mixed colours to the Grade II listed church – 65 light blue chairs, 10 pink chairs and 10 lavender chairs. The PCC proposed that if additional money were raised for a further 22 chairs, 11 would be white and 11 would be blue (presumably the light blue) [11]. However, the chairs had already been installed, the petitioners having felt under pressure to install them before an episcopal visit to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the consecration of the church; less convincingly, the petitioners alleged they had relied upon the DAC’s Notification of Advice despite the inclusion of the statement (in bold type) “This advice does not constitute authority for carrying out the works or proposals and a faculty is required” [3].

The DAC had recommended the proposals for approval by the court and stated that in its opinion, they would not be likely to affect the character of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest [10]. The Victorian Society did not respond [19], but the Church Buildings Council commented [16]:

“The proposal for multi-coloured upholstered chairs does not give due regard to the guidance or give a strong reason to depart from it. The Council notes that the parish has considered the colour choices to coordinate with colours in the ceiling of the building, but did not find this compelling, even adding confusion to the careful use of colour in the building”.

Its guidance recommended “high quality, wooden, unupholstered chairs” [15] and it recommended that a minimum of ten per cent of chairs had arms, a criterion observed in the petition. With regard to the Statement of Needs, Etherington Ch. accepted that the Petitioners had established a need for the chairs and was persuaded that the upholstered chairs are acceptable notwithstanding the CBC’s general guidance, particularly given their intended use [28]. However, in his judgment there was no need as such for chairs to be in a particular colour, which was a matter determined by aesthetic considerations [29]. He stated:

 “[30].  The issue here is specifically about a combination of colours amongst the seating: where the majority of the chairs are in one of two muted (and more neutral) colours and where a minority of the chairs are in two more dominant colours: pink/red and lavender/blue.

Applying the Duffield criteria to the red/pink, blue/lavender upholstery, he found that the proposal to have some chairs (10 pink/red and 10 blue/lavender) in these strong colours would result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historical interest; the damage would be at least moderate because it is very distracting to the eye as shown in the photographs presented to the court [36]. He was unable to conclude that there was any objective justification for these more strongly coloured chairs and that therefore they must be removed [37].

With regard to the  muted colours: the white and the light blue. Had they not already been purchased the Chancellor would be likely to have ruled that the chairs had to be one of the two more muted colours rather than both. However,

“[39]. The difference between these chairs and the others is that because of their considerably more muted tones, I regard the harm to the special architectural and historical significance of the church is correspondingly and substantially lower. There is no more justification for having two of the more subdued colours than for the more strikingly coloured ones but, bearing in mind the money already spent on these more neutrally upholstered chairs and the level of harm likely to be occasioned I find the balance by a small but definite margin favours “their retention.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a maximum of 150 upholstered chairs inside the church, but refused permission for the more deeply coloured pink/red, blue/lavender chairs being placed in the church, which must be removed and the PCC must certify to the Registry on or before June 1, 2023 that the pink/red and blue/lavender chairs have been removed from the interior of the church. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Primrose Hill [2022] ECC Lon 2] [Top of section] [Top]

Re St. Michael Upton Warren [2022] ECC Wor 7 The petitioners wished to remove three light, moveable, twentieth century pews from the Grade II* church, together with 20 chapel chairs, and replace them with up to 25 new chairs of a light-coloured wood with burgundy red upholstery on the seats and backs. Historic England cautioned against the use of upholstered replacement chairs due to their likely impact on the church’s interior, which is predominantly furnished in timber. The Victorian Society and the Georgian Society also objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the three pews and the chapel chairs and the introduction of up to 25 new wooden chairs, provided (inter alia) that: the new wooden chairs should be stained to match the surrounding woodwork; only the seats should be upholstered; and the colour of the upholstery should be a neutral colour to blend in with the colour of the wood. [Re St. Michael Upton Warren [2022] ECC Wor 7] [Top of section] [Top]



Re St Margaret and All Hallows Orford [2022] ECC Liv 1 The petitioners sought a faculty to permit the exhumation of their grandfather’s cremated remains from the churchyard at Orford and re-interment in the grave of his wife in Warrington Cemetery. The grandfather died in December 2000 and was predeceased by his wife by approximately 18 months [1]. Sixteen years later, their daughter petitioned for a faculty seeking the exhumation of her late father’s ashes, and the re-interment in Warrington cemetery [2]; however, the instant application concerned the re-interment in a family grave purchased by their granddaughter, (though this relationship was not evident from the papers supplied to the Court) [3]. Wood Ch. noted:

“[4]. Whilst the petition refers to the written consent of the area dean of Warrington…this has not in fact been forthcoming. On the contrary it is said that he expresses his opposition, and in a letter dated 24 May 2017 the churchwardens of St Margaret’s wrote to the Registry indicating similar opposition. It was said that no mistake had been made when the late Mr Greaves was interred in consecrated ground in the graveyard. At the time the
parish was in an interregnum”.

In addition to Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] 4 All ER 482, which applied the earlier principles in Re Christ Church Alsager [1999] Fam.142 the Chancellor cited the more recent similar case Re St. George New Mills [2021] ECC Der 2 in which a family had sought to unite the remains of deceased; in this case the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty as the  cremated remains of both parents could be reunited at New Mills, and the creation of new family grave elsewhere did not justify the disturbance of an existing family grave.

In the present case, no sufficient exceptional circumstances had been shown: the petitioner’s grandfather had died 18 months after his wife had been buried in the cemetery and the family (who said that they had mistakenly thought that his remains could not be buried in the same grave as his wife, who had been a Roman Catholic) had decided to have his remains buried in Orford churchyard; a long period of time (21 years) had elapsed since his death; and there was no support for the exhumation from the parish [15]. Wood Ch. observed:

“[16]. if arrangements have not been put in place prior to death with a family plot, the consistory court cannot indulge the moving of remains which have been interred through Christian burial in consecrated ground simply on the basis of strongly expressed family wishes, however genuine or sincere”.

[Re St Margaret & All Hallows Orford [2022] ECC Liv 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re Widnes Cemetery [2022] ECC Liv 2 A family grave had been in existence for some time within this cemetery, (since 1952) in which the parents and sister of the deceased had been buried (or at least their ashes interred). Prior to her passing, and with the knowledge of the deceased, the reserved grave had been reconfigured with edging stones put in place, and the grave upgraded to allow the inclusion of her mortal remains at the appropriate time [2]. “For reasons which are not altogether clear, the interment of the casket of ashes was outside the enclosed grave, and between the rear edging stone and the path [3].

It subsequently came to the attention of the grieving family that despite the wishes of the deceased to be interred with her family, her mortal remains have in effect been “cast adrift” and the casket [of ashes] was not set within the grave. They therefore application is to exhume the casket and to put it in its rightful place within the grave [4].

Having given this matter careful consideration, Wood Ch. had little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this was such an exceptional case arising from an error or a misunderstanding, and where a family grave had been established in the full expectation that the interment was going to take place therein. Although normally he would have expected to see a far fuller explanation as to how such a situation had been allowed to arise, but bearing in mind that the application for a petition for exhumation was made only a matter of days after the mistake came to light, it appeared to the Chancellor that it would be both disproportionate and insensitive to require further details in a case where exhumation is clearly appropriate [7].

The Chancellor decided that an error or misunderstanding had occurred, which, combined with the prompt request for rectification, amounted to an exceptional circumstance which would justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation and re-interment as requested; the only condition was that it is carried out within three months of the faculty grant [8]. [] [Top of section] [Top of post]


Re Stourport Town Cemetery [2022] ECC Wor 8 in which Humphreys Ch granted a faculty to authorize the exhumation of the remains of the petitioner’s father and re-interment with the purpose of removing some jewellery from the deceased. The funeral directors, Co-op Funeralcare, had apparently buried the Petitioner’s father wearing jewellery that the family had specifically requested be removed [2].

The family now wished to open the grave to obtain this jewellery before closing the grave up again. The mistake was noticed shortly after the remains had been interred and the petitioner had acted promptly. There was no plan to remove the remains of the deceased, nor to disturb them any further than was essential for the purpose of obtaining the jewellery. All family members consented to the exhumation and wished it to take place [3], though Stourport Town Council’s Parks and Cemetery Superintendent was unenthusiastic about the proposal “although he stopped short of directly opposing it” [5] and exhumation was conditional on “all reasonable conditions” he might require. [Re Stourport Town Cemetery [2022] ECC Wor 8] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re Northfleet Cemetery [2022] ECC Roc 2 A baby had died about an hour after its birth and the parents arranged for it to be buried in Northfleet Cemetery. They afterwards regretted their hasty decision to have the baby buried. The mother’s mental health, supported by medical evidence, had suffered. She wished to have the body exhumed and cremated, with the intention of retaining the cremated remains at home until she had recovered from her grief. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions that the cremated remains should be interred in consecrated ground within 10 years, and until interment the cremated remains should be retained in a respectful and careful manner. Re Northfleet Cemetery [2022] ECC Roc 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Churchyards and burials

Designation of closed churchyard

See Privy Council Business

[Back] [Top]

Churchyard Regulations

Re St. Nicholas Earls Croome [2022] ECC Wor 9 The Petitioner wished to install a kerbed memorial in the churchyard, an option not included in the Diocesan Churchyard Guidelines. Although the request was supported by the Priest in Charge, the sole churchwarden, and the Diocesan Advisory Committee, the PCC was divided, with some members supporting the petition and others opposing it [3]. The reasons for the opposition were based on the additional difficulties of maintenance that kerbed gravestones present, and the consequent costs; other objections included its potential as a trip hazard, a point with “some merit” and the possible requests of other families.

The Chancellor granted a faculty (subject to conditions about the height of the kerbs) for the following reasons put forward by the family [6]: the deceased had died young in tragic circumstances and a more substantial memorial was appropriate to mark her grave; the family particularly wished that kerbs would discourage people walking on the grave; there were already 16 kerbed memorials in the churchyard. Also, the parish priest had advised that the family had European heritage where there was a culture for more elaborate memorials and the inclusion of kerbing was part of that cultural heritage.

Humphreys Ch. invite the Petitioners to consider making donations and/or a legacy
to the church over future years for the ongoing maintenance of the churchyard, but did not make this a formal condition of this, having no knowledge of their circumstances and the other calls on their resources [11]. [Re St. Nicholas Earls Croome [2022] ECC Wor 9] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Cuthbert Etherley [2022] ECC Dur 5 The “main Petitioner” sought permission to inter the cremated remains of her mother in a grave containing the remains of two members of her family. She also wished to replace the existing worn memorial with a small stone to be laid horizontally on the grave, with a longer inscription in gold lettering and etchings of butterflies [1]. The PCC supported the petition, on which the churchwarden was joint petitioner [5].

The petitioner had already arranged for the memorial made without prior permission first; the memorial was made of Corian®, a man-made material, the primary use of which is for kitchen work tops. The colour was pinkish and flecked with other colours. Iles Ch. stated “on this ground alone, namely the use of unproven man-made material, a faculty will not be granted for the proposed memorial” [17].

“Furthermore, the proposed new memorial does not comply with rule iv) of the Churchyard Rules by virtue of its size as a solitary ledger, and it falls outside the provisions of rule xi) in at least two respects with regard to the inscription, namely that the lettering is of gilt, and the inscription is too wordy and not simple enough” [19].

The Chancellor also did not approve of the use of the term “passed” instead of “died, and nor would he permit the Petitioner’s name to appear on the memorial – the memorial was not to her, and her name should not appear on it [19].

He therefore refused to grant a faculty for the proposed memorial, noting that it was unfortunate that the Petitioner had incurred wasted expense in having the new memorial made without seeking permission beforehand, “but this demonstrates the perils of going ahead without first consulting the incumbent or the diocesan registry [20]. Had he had been prepared to grant a faculty he would in any event have first required the petition to be re-advertised, “because the public notice was misleading in stating that it was to be a granite base memorial rather than constructed from man-made corian” [21].

In respect of the uncontentious part of the petition which seeks a faculty for the interment of the cremated remains, a faculty was granted.[Re St. Cuthbert Etherley [2022] ECC Dur 5] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Mary Great Chart [2022] ECC Can 2 The petitioner wished to install a replacement memorial on his parents’ grave. The design included images of a dove, a stairway to heaven and two swans. The inscription included a verse of poetry written by the petitioner’s daughter and it ended with an x, the symbol of a kiss. There was an objection that the design would not be in keeping with the part of the churchyard where the memorial would be located. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the x should be omitted from the inscription. [Re St. Mary Great Chart [2022] ECC Can 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Privy Council Business

14 December 2022

  • Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Alkmund’s Churchyard, Duffield, Derbyshire; Saint Nicolas Church Churchyard, Kings Norton, Birmingham, West Midlands; and St Thomas Churchyard, Rotherham, South Yorkshire
  • Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: All Saints Church Churchyard, Beckingham, Doncaster, South Yorkshire; St Mary’s Church Churchyard, Rickinghall Superior, Suffolk; St Mark’s Church Churchyard, Eldon, Bishop Auckland, County Durham; St John the Baptist & St Helen Churchyard, Wroughton, Swindon, Wiltshire; and St Mary and All Saints Church Churchyard, Stoughton, Leicester, Leicestershire.

CDM Decisions and Safeguarding

A new policy came into force on 24 October 2022 although there is a lacuna in the case of The Right Reverend Peter Hullah where the penalty was imposed before this date. The page on the CofE website Penalties by Consent records the penalties that have been imposed by a bishop or archbishop with the consent of the respondent under section 16 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and penalties that have been imposed under section 30 or 31.

CDM Decisions

  • Decision: Revd Dr Stephen Sizer. A  complaint made in 2018 by Mrs Marie van der Zyl, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, alleging that Dr Sizer’s conduct was “unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within section 8(1)(d) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 in that he provoked and offended the Jewish community and/or engaged in anti-Semitic activity”. (6 December 2022).

Penalties by consent

  • The Right Reverend Peter Hullah
    Date imposed: 1st August 2022
    Brief Summary: Sexual misconduct involving two different women on two separate occasions.
    Penalty: Prohibition for life.
  • The Revd PHIL GREIG
    Diocese: Canterbury
    Date imposed: 7th December 2022
    Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
    Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
    Penalty: Limited prohibition for 4 years
    Diocese: Leicester
    Date imposed: 31st October 2022
    Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
    Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
    Penalty: Limited prohibition for 1 year

CFCE Determinations

The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page Cathedrals Fabric Commission. This also includes the applications that the commission examined, most recently on 14 December 2022. Extracts from the determinations in March, May and July were included in the September round-up of ecclesiastical decisions. Decisions from the meetings on 8 September 2022 and 3 November 2022 are now available and are summarized below. The next meeting of the CFCE is on Thursday 2 February 2023.

8 September 2022

  • Cathedral Church of Christ, Canterbury. To conserve the damaged early 19th century frame surrounding the portrait of Dean William Friend (inventory number 02275.2). Approved.
  • Cathedral Church of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary in Chester. Re-siting of historic Stuart font. Approved subject to conditions. 
  • Cathedral Church of St Peter in Exeter. To deliver the second phase of Exeter Cathedral’s 2020’s Vision – Investing in Our Welcome project. The proposals include: Installation of new service routes (infrastructure cabling/electrical and data services, heating); Reordering works in the Chapel of St James, Quire, Quire Aisles, the former Vestries and Cathedral Shop. The Commission decided to approve the deferred elements of the application.
  • Cathedral Church of St Peter and the Holy and Indivisible Trinity. Conservation and repair of two books: Lactantius (H.6.11), 1472; and Selden (SEL.1.3), 1652. The Commission determined to: approve the proposals for Lactantius; and defer determination of the proposals for Selden pending further information. 
  • The Cathedral Church of St Mary the Virgin and Saint Ethelbert the King, Hereford. Loan of the Romanesque capital Christ descent into Limbo to La Réunion des Musées Métropolitains, France. Approved subject to conditions.
  • The Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool. To install an echo organ in the north-east of the triforium. Approved subject to conditions.
  • The Cathedral of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Norwich. Minor repair to processional cross (Inventory no. E11*).  Approved subject to conditions.
  • The Cathedral Church of St Paul, London. The removal of temporary City of London removable bollards on the public highway, directly to the southwest of the west steps, to be replaced by three PAS-rated removable security bollards of the same appearance. The new bollards will be on cathedral land, on the boundary of the precinct, aligned with the late 19th-century granite bollards around the forecourt perimeter. Approved subject to conditions.

3 November 2022

  • Cathedral Church of Christ, Canterbury. To install a new security arrangement to Mint Yard Gate following the approved demolition of Mitchinson’s House and garden wall. Summary: external alterations to the existing Home Office compliant Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures at Mint Yard Gate, including four new fixed bollards and a proposal to redecorate the security hut. Approved subject to conditions.
  • Cathedral Church of Wells. Conservation of the Strikers to the North Transept, North Elevation Exterior Clock Face. Approved subject to conditions.
  • Cathedral Church of York Minster. Retrospective consent for a temporary compound in the North Transept to 31st December 2030. Approved subject to conditions.

[Top of post]

Links to other posts

Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:


[Top of post]

Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.

Last updated, 31 December 2022. 

Cite this article as: David Pocklington, "Ecclesiastical court judgments – December" in Law & Religion UK, 31 December 2022,


3 thoughts on “Ecclesiastical court judgments – December

  1. Penalties by consent
    The C of E website now has (on 6 January 2023) the following further entry:

    Diocese: Rochester
    Date imposed: 7th November 2022
    Relevant CDM section: 16(3A)
    Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders

    It will be noted that the entry omits to state the penalty that was imposed. It does give the information, though, that the penalty was imposed under section 16(3A) of the CDM. This subsection provides, “At any time after the bishop has directed, under section 12(1)(e) above, that the complaint be formally investigated in accordance with section 17 below or after the president of tribunals has referred the complaint to a disciplinary tribunal, the bishop and the respondent may, if the respondent admits the misconduct which is the subject of the complaint, agree to the imposition of a penalty under this section…”
    The precise stage at which Mr Broomfield admitted misconduct is not clear (e.g. whether it was after the president had referred the complaint to a tribunal) but, unlike the other two cases so far recorded, there is information in the public domain about this case. The Daily Telegraph reported on 13 February 2022 that “Iain Broomfield, vicar of Christ Church Bromley, Kent, has been suspended for the past year amid allegations of safeguarding concerns against adults.” The report (available online) goes on to state: “Mr Broomfield was a trustee and later chairman of the Titus Trust from November 2006 to May 2018. He was also chairman of the trust when news of abuse conducted by John Smyth QC broke, and therefore was responsible for the trust’s response to the fallout.”
    Also: “The complaints against Mr Broomfield are thought to only involve adults and vary in nature, with some being of a safeguarding nature, and that they cover recent and non-recent events. The Diocese of Rochester confirmed that “a number of complaints have been received about his behaviour” and that Mr Broomfield is currently subject to formal investigative proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure. It is not known how many complainants have come forward nor the exact nature of their complaints. However, the police have not been alerted to any potential concerns of criminal activity. A spokesman for the Diocese of Rochester said: “[None] of the complaints relate to children and the police are not involved. Formal proceedings to investigate [have] now been instituted.”
    Presumably (since he was suspended) parishioners at Mr Broomfield’s church have been informed of the outcome of the case, though there is nothing about it on the church website. Mr Broomfield’s suspension in 2020 is also recorded by Andrew Graystone in his book about John Smyth, ‘Bleeding for Jesus’, published in 2021: see pages 181 and 214.

    Another case, yet to appear on the Penalties by Consent webpage, concerns an Anglican priest in Guernsey. The BBC website reported on 20 December 2022:
    “An Anglican minister been removed from his posts in two churches in Guernsey after admitting inappropriate conduct. The Dean of Guernsey, the Very Rev Tim Barker, said the Rev Matthew Barrett had ceased to be rector of St Peter Port Church and vicar of St John’s. He was removed for “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders”.
    The report added: “No more information was being released to maintain the privacy of other parties, the dean said. Dean Barker said Mr Barrett “admitted to conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders and, under The Clergy Discipline (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Order 2006”.
    He added Mr Barrett “accepted, as a penalty, removal from his office as rector and vicar and prohibition from exercising any of the functions of his orders for a period of one year”. “Because the conduct complained of involves other parties whose privacy must be respected, no further details will be given and speculation is discouraged,” he said.

    Speculation may properly be discouraged, but the sparse information now to be available on the C of E website can surely only encourage a web search for more details of such cases. At least the details of Bishop Hullah’s misconduct (posted, incidentally, on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s, not the C of E, website, following a report of the case in the Daily Mail) indicate the nature of the unbecoming conduct, while maintaining the anonymity of the two women concerned.

    • Thank you David. I have added the information concerning The Revd IAIN JONATHAN BROOMFIELD to January’s mothly round-up of cases, and also to the 2023 Summary to be published at the end of the year.

      In addition, I was alerted to the following via Twitter

      Diocese of Portsmouth

      The Rev Peter Lambert The Rev Peter Lambert was the subject of a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure earlier this year. The complaint was of conduct inappropriate for a clergy person.

      Peter has admitted this inappropriate conduct. The penalty, which was determined by the Bishop of Portsmouth, is a five-year prohibition from ministry in the Church of England, from May 2022. This means he is not able to lead church services or act as a clergy person during that time. After this period of prohibition, a risk assessment will be carried out before Peter is able to resume ministry.

      November 2022

      • Mr Lambert’s 5-year prohibition is the subject of a brief report (under the headline ‘Priest suspended) on page 4 of The Times, 7 January 2023:

        “A priest has been suspended by the Church of England for five years over an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable parishioner. The Rev Peter Lambert, who is married, gave the woman gifts and took her family on day trips. She has received a written apology from the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev Dr Jonathan Frost.”

        Again, more detail than would have appeared on the C of E website. In this case, like that of Bishop Hullah, the penalty, seemingly imposed in May 2022, pre-dated the date (24 October 2022) when the amendment to the Code of Practice came into effect requiring penalties by consent to be posted on the C of E website. Hence, the formal notice, although dated November 2022, appearing instead on the Portsmouth diocesan website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *