Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during April 2025
The twelve consistory court judgments circulated in April 2025 include:
This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Reports from the Independent Reviewer; Privy Council Business; Visitations; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re All Saints Rainford [2025] ECC Liv 1 “An application had been made for a
faculty to authorise retrospectively the display of illuminated symbols on the church tower at certain times of the year, for example, an illuminated cross during the Advent and Christmas seasons. A complaint was made by a local resident, living approximately 400-500m away, claiming, inter alia, light pollution and safety concerns. The Chancellor determined that a faculty should be granted, subject to conditions as to limits on the timing of the illumination and to the petitioner first obtaining planning consent”. [Re All Saints Rainford [2025] ECC Liv 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. John the Apostle Whetstone [2025] ECC Lon 1 The proposal was to
remove twenty-eight pews and four choir frontals and to replace them with moveable, stackable ‘Theo’ chairs with upholstered seats. A representative sample of four pews would remain. There was one letter of objection from a private objector. The Victorian Society did not approve of upholstered seats. The Chancellor considered that the harm to the church caused by the removal of the pews would be low to moderate and that “given the clearly established need for much more space with the changing demographic profile of the congregation and the increased attendance and vitality of this church, the proposed changes are justified.” However, he granted a faculty subject to a condition that the new chairs should be unupholstered, unless otherwise ordered by the court. He gave the petitioners three weeks in which to put forward further detailed representations regarding upholstered seats to be considered by the Victorian Society and the Chancellor. [Re St. John the Apostle Whetstone [2025] ECC Lon 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Exhumation of a Baby [2024] ECC Exe 1 A baby girl had died at birth, though a twin had survived. The baby had been buried in the churchyard of a village in Devon. Six months after the burial, the mother had managed to free herself from her relationship with the father of the baby, from whom she had suffered domestic abuse for two years and she sought help from local domestic abuse professionals and the police. The father had been given a prison sentence for offences relating to abuse. The mother returned to live with her parents in another village. She suffered post-traumatic stress symptoms and could not contemplate visiting the village where the baby was buried. She therefore wished to have the baby’s remains exhumed and reinterred in the village where she and her parents lived. The father objected, as he was under a restraining order not to visit that village. The Chancellor was satisfied that the need to protect the mother and her surviving daughter was sufficient to establish an exception to the general principle against exhumation, and he therefore granted a faculty. [Re Exhumation of a Baby [2024] ECC Exe 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Rougham [2025] ECC SEI 1 The petitioners wished to exhume the ashes of their mother, Mrs. Rose, from Roughan churchyard and reinter the ashes in Beyton churchyard. At the time of her death, Mrs. Rose’s children had decided to inter their mother’s ashes in her parents’ grave at Rougham. Mrs. Rose’s siblings had been ‘furious’ that the funeral had taken place and that their sister’s ashes had been interred in their parents’ grave without them being informed, and they refused to accept an apology from the petitioners.
Owing to the family tension, the petitioners felt that the only solution was to exhume Mrs. Rose’s ashes and inter them in a different churchyard with the ashes of her husband, who had recently died. Mrs. Rose’s siblings at first objected to the exhumation but later withdrew their objection. Gau Ch. concluded:
“[9]. …from the list of authorities that have been issued by Consistory courts over the years where the ’exceptionality’ test has been applied after the Re Blagdon Cemetery case is that a psychiatric or psychological condition linked to the location of the grave is such an exceptional feature. In this case Ms McCloskey has been advised by her grief counsellor not to visit the grave due to the distressing behaviour that she has had to witness. If I allow this exhumation a family grave of two people who clearly loved each other can be created. To refuse the exhumation would be to deny the chance of a family grave.
[10]. This petition passes the seal.
[Re St. Mary Rougham [2025] ECC SEI 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Uggeshall [2025] ECC SEI 2 The deceased whose cremated remains were the subject of the petition had lived in London and had died suddenly at the age of 56. His family had been persuaded by a close friend of the deceased, who lived next to the churchyard in Uggeshall in Suffolk, to have the deceased ashes interred in the churchyard. He was not interred in a cemetery local to Fulham as the local churchyard was ‘full’ [2].
The family subsequently fell out with the friend after, as they alleged, he caused a motor accident, as a result of which one family member was admitted to hospital, and another was treated for shock. Gau Ch. identified three reasons why the petitioners said that the exhumation was necessary: the rift with the former family friend; the desire to create a family grave; and the inconvenience of the location of the grave for the surviving family [7].
The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, as he considered that none of these reasons were sufficiently exceptional to justify exhumation. [Re St. Mary Uggeshall [2025] ECC SEI 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
- Development of churchyard
- Designation of closed churchyard
- Churchyard Regulations
- Reservation of grave space
Re St. Mary East Molesey [2025] ECC Gui 1 The churchyard of St Mary East Molesey was closed to new burials by order in 1861 with the exception of interments in family vaults. While the churchyard is well maintained, the traditional but somewhat haphazard central placement of many headstones means that the churchyard cannot be readily used as a communal space [1]. The petitioners sought permission to relocate 64 headstones from the centre of the churchyard to its perimeter, in order to create “a safe and welcoming outdoor space for events, activities and quiet reflection”.
There are about 111 headstones, box tombs and tablets in the churchyard surrounding the church. Some of the headstones have previously been moved and relocated along the boundary walls of the churchyard due to safety concerns. The proposal is to retain all the box tombs, including the two listed tombs, in their present positions and to relocate the headstones around the perimeter of the churchyard [4].
The removal of 64 headstones from the central area would permit the church to use the churchyard for: its youth and children’s programmes (enabling better engagement with a growing demographic in the congregation); community events such as fairs, open-air services; gardening initiatives that foster connection and belonging; an area for quiet reflection, offering spaces for prayer and peaceful contemplation [5].
The PCC has a fundraising strategy and are close to securing £20,000 for the project through collaboration with a local councillor; the remaining £5,000 will be covered by the PCC [8]. A community consultation process was conducted over four weeks in late 2024 and an informal public notice was posted locally with a summary of the proposals. There were a few consultees who raised opposition [9].
The Senior Conservation Design Officer at Elmbridge Borough Council informed the petitioners that planning permission was not required to move headstones as it was not classed as significant development [13]. The Chancellor granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary East Molesey [2025] ECC Gui 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Paul Bentley Common [2025] ECC Chd 1 The petitioner’s son committed suicide in 2013. Although the family had lived at Blackmore, Essex, since 1971, the petitioner’s son’s ashes were not buried there since it was alleged that the then incumbent would not conduct a funeral. The Petitioner and her husband therefore arranged for the ashes to be buried at Bentley Common, where other members of the family had been buried. After the death of her husband, whose ashes were buried at Blackmore, the petitioner wished to have her son’s ashes exhumed and buried in his father’s grave, where the petitioner also wished to have her own remains buried in due course. The Chancellor decided that there were special circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: the petitioner’s son had never lived at Bentley Common, nor indicated that he wished to be buried there; Blackmore was his home; reinterment at Blackmore would create a family grave; and at the time of the son’s death the situation at Blackmore had been far from ideal. [Re St. Paul Bentley Common [2025] ECC Chd 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
Re Chew Magna Churchyard [2025] ECC B&W 2 A breach of the churchyards regulations had been referred to the Chancellor [3]. A memorial had been installed in the churchyard, without waiting for the Rector’s decision, and the design included a red poppy with green leaves. There was an obvious breach of ecclesiastical law both by installing a memorial without permission and by including a coloured design in contravention of the Regulations [5].
The regulations did not permit coloured motifs. Although the lady who ordered the memorial for her husband’s grave from a local stonemason was not aware of the regulations, the Chancellor pointed out that the stonemason should have been aware of the regulations and should have informed his client that approval was needed from the Chancellor for a coloured motif [7] to [10].
The lady had requested a red poppy, as her husband had been involved for 15 years in collecting funds for the British Legion. On compassionate grounds, the Chancellor decided that the colouring of the red poppy could remain, but that the green colouring should be removed and either that part of the design left uncoloured or painted in a manner permitted by the Regulations. [Re Chew Magna Churchyard [2025] ECC B&W 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Tuxford War Memorial [2025] ECC S&N 1 A private individual applied for a faculty to authorise the cleaning of the war memorial in Tuxford churchyard and the re-colouring of the inscriptions. The Chancellor highlighted various difficulties presented by the matter: the status of the petitioner; the fact that originally the question as to ownership of the memorial had not been investigated; what should be the recommended method of cleaning; what should be the appropriate colouring of the lettering; and whether (as the memorial was listed Grade II) Listed Building Consent would be required. The Chancellor accepted that the petitioner had a sufficient interest to present the petition and that investigations after the lodging of the petition to establish ownership were unsuccessful. He granted a faculty authorising the cleaning of the memorial with plain water or steam cleaning and the re-colouring of the lettering only on a like-for-like basis. He also required that no work should be done until the local authority had confirmed in writing that Listed Building consent would not be required. [Re Tuxford War Memorial [2025] ECC S&N 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Michael & All Angels Woolmer Green [2025] ECC StA 1 The petitioner sought to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her parents, who were part of the Travelling Community. The proposed memorial was to be polished blue pearl granite, with a cover slab with rounded steps and built-in vases. The design included gilded lettering, a carved angel draped over the upright stone, three-dimensional carved climbing roses and inlaid photographs.
The original design put forward was, however, amended: the three-dimensional climbing roses were replaced with discreet climbing roses lower down on the headstone; the stone specification was changed to honed light grey granite; the shape of the upright stone was amended; the urns and photographs were omitted; and the angel design was simplified. The Chancellor decided that the amended specification should be approved: “I consider that an appropriate balance has been struck in this case between allowing expression of cultural traditions and beliefs of the Travelling Community and taking into consideration the needs of the settled community.” [Re St. Michael & All Angels Woolmer Green [2025] ECC StA 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2 Hodge CH. noted that within the last 18 months he had delivered two written judgments on two separate applications for faculties seeking the reservation of separate full burial plots within the churchyard of St Paul, in the Parish of Caton-with-Littledale, for the usual period (in this diocese) of 25 years, reported here and here. In each case, he granted a faculty for an initial duration of only seven years, but with permission for the petitioner(s) to apply by letter (and for no further fee), within the last year of the term of the faculty . The churchyard only had sufficient space available for further burials for about another five to seven years, and he was concerned to ensure that neither reservation should prejudice other parishioners with rights of burial within the churchyard. This was against the background that additional land (currently used as a recreational area) is available for consecration when the present churchyard is full [1]. The petitioners in the instant case, aged 81 and 79, sought a faculty reserving a double burial plot within the churchyard for the interment of their human remains for the usual period (in this diocese) of 25 years [2].
There is currently room for only five years’ worth of new graves, although the PCC had resolved to re-use burial plots that had not had any burials in them for at least 150 years, so as to create at least another 50 grave spaces [3]. The petitioner lived in the village and had strong connections with the church, and despite its general policy of not supporting new faculties apart from those relating to existing graves, the PCC strongly supported the petition [4].
The Chancellor identified two consistent themes which seem to me to run through all the authorities: where a PCC have adopted a policy governing the reservation of grave spaces that is considered to be reasonable and fair, it would not be right to override that policy unless there is an exceptional reason for doing so; and where the remaining space within the churchyard is limited, it will not usually be right to extend the duration of any reservation faculty beyond the period for which the churchyard is likely to continue to have space for burials [7].
In each of his two previous decisions concerning this churchyard, Hodge Ch. granted a faculty for an initial duration of only seven years, but with permission for the petitioner(s) to apply by letter (and for no further fee), within the last year of the term of the faculty, for its duration to be extended. he considered whether he should so the same in the present case. because of their different ages, the situation of these joint petitioners is qualitatively different from that of the petitioners in the two earlier cases. Their position is also different because of the support that their petitions have received from the PCC (including the incumbent and churchwarden) [9].
Noting that “[o]nce again, this decision is based upon case-specific factors, rather than any inflexible rules”, he determined that, in view of the PCC’s plans to reuse part of the churchyard for burials to meet the future needs of the parish, it was appropriate for him to grant a faculty 10]. [Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2] [Top of section] [Top of page].
Re St. Paul Caton-with-Littledale [2025] ECC Bla 2 The Petitioners, aged 79 and 81, both resident within the parish and on the church electoral roll, applied for the reservation of a double burial plot for the usual period (in the Diocese of Blackburn) of 25 years. Sufficient space remained within the churchyard for some five years’ future burials, but additional land was available for consecration. In 1923, the Parochial Church Council (“PCC”) had decided that it would not support new faculties for grave reservations. However, at a meeting in April 2025, the PCC decided to support the present petition. Bearing in mind the PCC’s decision, the availability of additional land and the age of the petitioners, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for the full period of 25 years. [Re St. Paul Caton-with-Littledale [2025] ECC Bla 2] [Top of section] [Top of page].
See also Re St. Paul Caton-with-Littledale [2024] ECC Bla 2 and Re Caton-with-Littledale St. Paul [2023] ECC Bla 6.
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Peters Churchyard, Clayworth, Retford, Nottinghamshire.
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St James’ Churchyard, Church Hill, West End, Southampton, Hampshire; St John the Evangelist Churchyard, Tatworth, Somerset; St Cuthbert’s Churchyard, Beltingham; St Michael the Archangel Churchyard, Emley, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire; St Leonard’s Churchyard, Southoe, St Neots, Cambridgeshire; St Mary’s Church Old Churchyard, Sturmer, Essex; Holy Trinity Church Churchyard, West End.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
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.
CDM Decisions
Penalties by consent
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 JAMES RODNEY HAITH
Diocese: London
Date imposed: 21st March 2025
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
Safeguarding
David Tudor: Safeguarding Review, (1 April 2025).
Reports from the Independent Reviewer
Individual Reports from the Independent Reviewer are to be found at House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (Independent Reviewer), scroll down.
The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page Cathedrals Fabric Commission. The programme for 2025 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 15 May 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Faculty & planning requirements: illumination of churches, (9 April 2025).
- “Net zero”, church heating, and the consistory courts – V, (4 April 2025).
Exhumation
Churchyards
- Restoring a listed memorial? Re Tuxford War Memorial, (22 April 2025).
General/Miscellaneous
- Independent Reviewer’s report on WATCH submission, (24 April 2025).
- David Tudor – Safeguarding Review, (3 April 2025).
[Top]
Updated: 30 April 2025 at 08:42.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.
Pingback: Spring Ecclesiastical Law Digest – May 2025 – Middle Temple Library Blog