Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during August 2024
The eleven consistory court judgments circulated in August 2024 included:
This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Reports from the Independent Reviewer; Privy Council Business; Other legal issues; Visitations; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Re St. Bartholomew Orford [2024] ECC SEI 2 This is a judgment following an application by the petitioners in Re St. Bartholomew Orford [2024] ECC SEI 1 for an order that the party opponent should contribute towards the costs of the proceedings – a petition for a confirmatory Faculty to regularize the unlawful installation of 6 combination light and heating chandeliers to replace the current lights and the current oil-fired heating system.
The Chancellor rejected the application, as he had “seen no evidence submitted by the petitioners in relation to any increase in procedural costs or increased correspondence costs caused by the unreasonable or other behaviour of the party opponent.” [Re St. Bartholomew Orford [2024] ECC SEI 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. Mary Kersey [2024] ECC SEI 3 The petitioners sought a confirmatory
faculty for the temporary installation of a modern shrine/prayer station/prayer bowl; temporary removal of the altar along the north wall ‘until the prayer bowl is moved’; moving of the screen from the north wall; artwork explaining the shrine history; replacement the glass in the sedilia window with lead light quarries and inclusion of red, white and blue centre panes with the etching 1953-2023 to commemorate the late Queen Elizabeth’s 70th Jubilee; and removal of the glass from the squint window [1(a) to (f)]. The shrine was first discussed in 2018 and installed in March 2020 although there is no information on the dates that the other unlawful alterations were made [2]. “The vision was to re-hallow the ancient Shrine and install a temporary prayer bowl, inviting visitors to place a pebble into the bowl and to take away a pebble – in the hope of returning in the future. [The Church] now encourage[s] people to write a prayer card [5].
There were two objectors [6] to [9]; Historic England was the only amenity body to make any submissions, and indicated that it did not have any objection to the reordering and renewal of glazing [10]. Applying the test in Re St Alkmund, Duffield, Gau Ch. noted that most of them were to the aesthetics and size of the shrine [11] to [13].
He granted the petition as prayed with regard to the prayer bowl and the associated artwork on the basis that any harm was both slight and temporary. He was satisfied that the removal of the glass to the squint and the restoration of etched glass to the sedilia would be an improvement to what is currently in place. The following conditions apply: a). The installation of the prayer bowl and the removal of the altar would be permitted for 5 years from this date; b). The petitioners were actively to consider relocating the rood screen so that it might be used to enhance worship.
[Re St. Mary Kersey [2024] ECC SEI 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2024] ECC Liv 2 An application was made for a confirmatory faculty in respect of extensive reordering works carried out without prior issue of a faculty. The works related to the creation in the Grade I church of a community hub, which included: removal and disposal of 12 pews; installation of 8 storage cupboards; creation of a servery and a café area with tables and chairs; the installation of a shop area with display units; the installation of a Post Office counter and completion of an agreement with the Post Office; and external signage. The Chancellor granted a faculty but, not being satisfied with the quality of the storage cupboards, the kitchen servery furniture, and the units to the west wall, he made it a condition of the faculty that those items must be replaced within 12 months by furnishings which would be designed to be more in keeping with the character of the church and approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee. [Re St. Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2024] ECC Liv 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
See earlier cases Re St. Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2019] ECC Liv 4 and Re St. Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2020] ECC Liv 3.
Re St. Mary Knowsley [2024] ECC Liv 3 The petitioner sought a substantial internal reordering of the church. He was
supported by the DAC but a degree of opposition had been expressed by the amenity societies, and by an individual parishioner with connections to the church [1]. The full schedule of proposed works was purportedly set out in the specification and drawings provided by the Finlayson partnership, and a fuller description was within the statement of need, summarized in [4(1) to (10)]. The works as proposed, with the levelling of the chancel, would cover he stone bases of both the pulpit and the lectern [6].
Wood Ch. noted that there were significant access problems with the pews currently on raised plinths, a chancel which was accessible only for the able-bodied (thus making participation in the communion impossible if the sanctuary was to be used for the more elderly and infirm congregation members). Unusually, the pews do not have a central aisle; the main pews span the central section, whilst the pews in the north and south sides of the nave had aisles between them and the central section. This means that the unconventional church layout was not appealing to those seeking a church for weddings (or even funerals). “It was considered that this was exclusive for the wider community, and not inclusive of those who might otherwise not be regular church attenders” [7].
“Principally, access into and around the Church is a major issue. Split across multiple levels, with several steps located throughout the church, the proposal seeks to simplify access from the church gates into the main body of the Church and to significantly improve access internally facilitating manageable disabled access from the Porch door up to the Sanctuary.”
The Chancellor noted that the most significant of the interior special features were the early 20th century wall; save for the pew removal, the fixtures and fittings, and the other features of architectural interest will remain untouched [14]. The contentious item was the proposal to replace most of the pews of the Grade II* Victorian church with chairs, in order to provide more comfortable and more flexible seating for church and community use. Historic England objected to the removal of the pews. Both of the amenity societies were critical about the amount of information which had been provided by the petitioner, “essentially the professional advisers”, who were drawing up the scheme, and providing the statement of needs and significance [20].
Following receipt of the CBC advice, Mr Finlayson on behalf of the architects provided his response, accompanied by updated statement of need and significance. This addressed a number of issues; he dealt with the heating report and advice that had been obtained from the heating engineers, which had been prepared with due regard to the Church of England net zero carbon targets [22].
The Chancellor concluded:
“[33]. whilst this proposal is the predominant reason why the level of harm is at least moderate (with categorisation normally being negligible, modest, moderate and serious) the petitioners have here created a compelling case for internal reordering which preclude pews in the nave space.
Whilst much of the criticism from the amenity societies appears to relate to an apparent failure on the part of the petitioner to consider reasonable alternatives that might preserve the majority of the pews, and meet the object of the reordering in a less harmful way, it seems to me that there is a recognition by them of the limitations of use which are represented by the present layout of the church”
The replacement seating is the Theo chair: an all timber chair, and not as one sometimes sees an upholstered chair with chrome legs: “[36]. …It will comply with the guidance provided by the CBC in respect of replacement seating…I do not believe that there will be excessive difficulty in setting out and removing these chairs; it is also to be expected that any organisation using the church space will supply the necessary muscle before and after events”
A faculty was granted, subject to conditions [43]. [Re St. Mary Knowsley [2024] ECC Liv 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary Adderbury [2024] ECC Oxf 4 The Parochial Church Council (PCC)
wished to amend a faculty granted in 2023 for the installation of electric heating so as to substitute Near Infrared ‘Couronne’ chandeliers for the Far Infrared ‘Halo’ chandeliers which had been approved. The advantage of the Couronne chandeliers was that they would save the PCC £40,000; the disadvantages that they were not as attractive as the Halo chandelier and they would give off a red glow. The Chancellor considered that the proposed variation would be a major departure from what had previously been approved and would affect the character of the church as a Grade I listed building of special architectural or historic interest. He accordingly dismissed the petition. [Re St. Mary Adderbury [2024] ECC Oxf 4] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
See also Re St. Mary Knowsley. The installation of a new heating system intended to be energy efficient, with two new gas fired condensing boilers, with pipework and trenches installed to suit the new floor construction; existing wall mounted radiators and convector heaters to be retained. [Re St. Mary Knowsley [2024] ECC Liv 3]
Re St. Mary the Virgin Morpeth [2024] ECC New 2 The petition sought permission for the filming inside the church of a scene for a film entitled ‘28 Years Later’, portraying “a post-apocalyptic world in which people are largely infected by a ‘rage’ virus which leads them to violence”. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend approval of the proposal and one member of the Parochial Church Council objected but did not become a party opponent. The Chancellor considered Canon F15, “Of churches not to be profaned” and Canon F16, “Of plays, concerts and exhibitions of films and pictures in churches”. He also considered advice given in the Diocese of London concerning the use of churches for filming. He concluded that the scene to be filmed would be “intrinsically objectionable” and that “it would be inappropriate to permit it to take place.” He therefore refused to grant a faculty. There is an appendix to the judgment regarding the costs of the proceedings. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Morpeth [2024] ECC New 2] [Post] [Top]
Re East Sheen Cemetery [2024] ECC Swk 1 The 16 months old child of Italian parents living in England died following a fall whilst the family were on holiday in the Netherlands. The child’s cremated remains were brought back to England and interred in a consecrated part of East Sheen Cemetery. It was always the parents’ intention to move back to Italy and they treated the interment as temporary until they could return to Italy and inter the child’s ashes there.
They were not told that the ashes were interred in consecrated ground and that exhumation from consecrated ground would not be granted unless there were exceptional circumstances. If they had been informed about the consequences, the parents would not have had their child’s ashes interred in consecrated ground.
Upon an application by the parents for exhumation before returning to live in Italy, the Chancellor considered that a mistake had been made which would allow an exception to the normal rule against exhumation and he therefore granted a faculty. [Re East Sheen Cemetery [2024] ECC Swk 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John Dudley Wood [2024] ECC Wor 6 An application for a memorial was refused by the priest-in-charge; it was outside the churchyard regulations regards the proposed inclusion of a photograph of the deceased. The applicant was advised to apply for a faculty. The stonemasons subsequently installed the memorial, including a photographic plaque, without the authority of a faculty.
The Churchyard Regulations currently in force in this Diocese were made by the Chancellor’s predecessor, Chancellor Charles Mynors in 2004, with an accompanying booklet Churchyard Memorials: a Guide for the Bereaved, also issued in 2004 and revised in 2013. Humphreys Ch. observed: “As they have been in force since 2004 there is no reason why any reputable stonemason should be unaware of their existence”. She rejected the argument of the Jones Memorials as communicated via Mr Hackett that these regulations continuing unchanged for 10[+] years is a reason for not knowing about them, commenting “they may change in the future, but unless and until they do, they remain in force as currently formulated. This reason was wisely not repeated in Ms Davies letter” [19].
She also rejected the suggestion that the wording of the existing Diocesan Regulations was unclear [20], and that the Revd Richard Hackett was in any way to blame for the situation that had arisen [24]. However, the Chancellor noted the presence of other photo plaques within St John’s Churchyard and the suggestion by that there were others elsewhere in the Diocese installed by Jones Memorials with appropriate permissions. She directed that Jones Memorials provide a list to the Registry of all such memorials erected by them together with copies, where available, of the permissions given [25].
Having considered the matter, Humphreys Ch. took the view that the suggestion of the petitioner that the photo plaque would be maintained by him until his death and then removed so that his own details could be added to the memorial stone. She therefore granted a time-limited faculty with conditions of maintenance and removal upon the first to occur of one year after Mr C himself passing away or 18 years from the date of this faculty, (i.e. the average actuarial life expectancy of a 71 year old man plus 3 years) [29]. “This enables the current memorial to remain whilst it is emotionally significant for Mr C, but does not permit it to become a precedent for other similar memorials as it is temporary [30]”.
The Chancellor stated that the stonemasons were at fault in not being aware of the restrictions against photographs in the churchyards regulations and installing a memorial without lawful authority. She directed that a special citation be issued to join the stonemasons as a party with a view to issuing an order for the costs of the faculty application to be paid by them. [Re St. John Dudley Wood [2024] ECC Wor 6] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary Fawkham [2024] ECC Roc 1 The Petitioner wished to install a memorial in the churchyard in memory of his late wife. The proposed memorial was a headstone and kerbs, the proposed stone being polished paradiso granite, described as “a swirling mixture of pink, grey, red and black colours in a strongly-defined tortoiseshell-type pattern.” The Parochial Church Council objected to the proposed type of memorial and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the grant of a faculty. The concerns were as to the colour, the polished finish and the inclusion of kerbstones. The petitioner produced a “petition” signed by several people purporting to support the application for a faculty. The Chancellor determined that such petition was inadmissible. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow a headstone of paradiso granite, provided that the stone had a matt finish, but he refused to permit the installation of kerbs. [Re St. Mary Fawkham [2024] ECC Roc 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2024] ECC She 6 This judgment addresses a private petition for a faculty to permit the installation of a headstone in the churchyard of St Mary’s Church in Catcliffe; the petition of February 2024 followed the incumbent refusing permission under the rules. The proposed memorial does not comply with the Diocesan Churchyard Rules; it is an “open book” design of polished black granite, and includes a poppy design which Singleton Ch. inferred was to be in colour and not simply engraved in outline [1].
The memorial stone is intended to commemorate the Petitioner’s paternal grandparents; her grandfather died in May 2021 and her grandmother in October 2022. Their remains have been interred in the churchyard in the same plot. The incumbent and the PCC had already been obliged to resolve a dispute between family members about where in the churchyard the remains of the paternal grandmother should be buried because some members of the family had wanted to place them together with the remains of a daughter of the deceased who had died before them. The word “passed” is included to convey the dates of the deaths of the Petitioner’s grandparents; the words “reunited again” are included [2].
Three members of the family objected on the grounds that the inscription was to include the names of certain members of the family, but not others [3]. The Chancellor was concerned about the proposed inscription being “crowded with engraved sentiments” and also the inappropriateness of some of the wording [8], but decided to leave it to the incumbent and the family to agree any amendments. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to conditions that (a) the names of all the deceased’s children and grandchildren should be mentioned in the inscription or none and (b) the poppy design to be engraved into the memorial should be limited to an outline in the same colour as the rest of the engravings. [Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2024] ECC She 6] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. James the Great Radley [2024] ECC Oxf 5 The petitioner wished to reserve a grave next to the grave of her late husband in the churchyard at Radley. She had originally approached the incumbent about reserving a space immediately after her husband had died, before the Parochial Church Council (PCC) subsequently decided that there should be a policy of no further reservations and she had understood that the reservation would not be a problem. The incumbent and PCC in fact supported the reservation. The Chancellor granted a faculty, even though it was estimated that there was only sufficient space in the churchyard for burials within the next three years. The petitioner had resided in the parish for over 50 years, and her family had strong connections with the church, and many members of the family were buried in the churchyard. Furthermore, the petitioner being part of the Romany Community, which believed in burial, cremation was not an option. Also, the PCC was actively looking at options for further burial space within the parish. [Re St. James the Great Radley [2024] ECC Oxf 5] [Top of section] [Top of page].
There have been no Privy Council meetings since 10 July 2024.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
CDM Decisions
Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty are published by the Church of England; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed. The majority of complaints that are made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal.
Penalties by consent
A new policy came into force on 24 October 2022 although there is a potential lacuna for cases where the penalty was imposed after the change in the Code of Practice, paragraph 312, but before this date, as with The Right Reverend Peter Hullah. 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.
Name: The Revd SIMON FRANK BETTERIDGE
Diocese: Coventry
Date imposed: 20th August 2024
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Rebuke and injunction
Name: The Revd STEPHEN ANTHONY MANGAR
Diocese: Guildford
Date imposed: 27th June 2024
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Removal from office & limited prohibition for 2 years (with effect from 25th June 2024)
The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page Cathedrals Fabric Commission. A summary of the meeting in September 2023 was included in our post in June 2024. Links to the remaining meetings in 2023 have now been added to the CFCE site.
The programme for 2024 is here; the meetings to date, but as yet unreported are:
- Thursday 1 February 2024
- Thursday 11 April 2024
- Thursday 6 June 2024
- Thursday 18 July 2024
and the next meeting will be on 5 September 2024.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Churchyards
- “A most ingenious paradox”, (29 August 2024).
General/Miscellaneous
- Archbishops’ Commission on Racial Justice – 5th report, (23 August 2024).
- Holy ground or Hollywood? – the canons & filming in church: Re St Mary the Virgin Morpeth. (22 August 2024).
- Parochial Fees – 2025 and 2026, (21 August 2024).
- “An ostrich-like approach to ecclesiastical law requirements…?” (11 August 2024)
- Vatican ‘lexicon’ on end-of-life issues, (9 August 2024).
- Richard III: the prequel, (3 August 2024).
[Top]
Updated: 1 September 2024 at 17:29.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.