Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during May 2026
Summaries to the both consistory court judgments reviewed during May are here. 
This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law. An index to these and earlier judgments in here.
Re St. Edward Kempley [2025] ECC Glo 1 The Chancellor of the Diocese of Gloucester considered a petition for a memorial at St. Edward’s Church, Kempley, featuring a carved “green man”, to reflect the association with Morris dancing of the person to be commemorated by the proposed memorial[1,2]. Initial advice from church authorities opposed the design, viewing the green man as a non-Christian or potentially pagan symbol[3].
The Chancellor undertook further research, including expert academic input based upon a short paper that the Reverend Dr Helen Hall had co-authored with Professor Javier Garcia Oliva at Manchester University, entitled: ‘The Green Man/Foliate Head as a Symbol in the Context of Christian Memorialisation.’ This showed that the green man appears in medieval church architecture and can carry Christian meanings linked to themes of death, resurrection, and redemption [8]. Scholarly opinion now suggests that earlier claims of pagan origins, such as the work of Lady Raglan (1939) are largely discredited[9].
The court also applied principles from prior cases, that memorials should not introduce symbols likely to cause offence or controversy among churchyard visitors: Re All Saints Stretton-on-Dunsmore [2023] ECC Cov 2 (three lions); Re St. Oswald Dean [2016] ECC Car 5 and Re St. Mary Canwell [2020] ECC Lic 2 (masonic symbols). However, given evolving understanding and contemporary acceptance (including its appearance on the 2023 Coronation invitation), the Chancellor found the symbol unlikely to offend a significant body of people. Concluding that the green man can reasonably be interpreted as a Christian symbol, he granted the faculty, permitting the memorial as proposed. [Re St. Edward Kempley [2025] ECC Glo 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Thomas Stanningley [2026] ECC Lee 2 The petition sought a faculty authorizing the removal of unauthorised items which had been placed on or near tablets over plots where cremated remains have been interred. These ornaments are not permitted under the Churchyard Regulations for the Diocese of Leeds, nor are they sanctioned under bespoke regulations [1]. Hill Ch. stated that the objections, taken thematically, could be fairly summarized as follows[3]:
- that when family members made arrangements for the ashes to be interred in a plot in the Garden of Remembrance, they were not informed of the existence, content or enforceability of the Regulations and, accordingly, they should not be bound by their contents;
- that had they been alerted to the restrictions in the Regulations in advance, they would have made alternative provision for the interment of the cremated remains in a burial ground with less restrictive provisions;
- that the plots (together with the ornaments) are carefully and lovingly maintained and are considered to be a beautiful tribute to much loved family members.
- that the younger generation of the bereaved derive considerable comfort from the various ornaments and decorations, a particular example being given of a four-year old girl laying flowers for a fondly remembered grandmother.
- that a colourful graveyard is more welcoming and easier to visit.
Fully understanding how they may well derive comfort from the items, objects and ornaments loving left on or near individual tablets, he noted that Churchyard Regulations existed to ensure consistent practice in the churchyard [4]. The main issue was whether the families concerned had notice in advance of the existence of the Regulations. They say they did not. The petitioners suggest otherwise. It was impossible to resolve this matter definitively without oral testimony and cross-examination, but the Chancellor regarded the convening of a hearing to be pastorally challenging and disproportionate to the resolving of the dispute[5].
Looking at all the surrounding circumstances, it appeared uncontroversial that the Regulations were on the parish website from at least 2018. Their content was routinely brought to the attention to those seeking to inter the cremated remains of family members within the garden of remembrance, although it is possible that during the inter-regnum a couple of years ago when there was no incumbent in place, there may have been some neglect in the practice [6].
He was satisfied that the Regulations were sufficiently available even though in one or more instances express notification to the families did not take place. In the circumstances it seemed to him that a faculty should properly be granted to authorise the removal of items which do not comply with the Regulations. The Chancellor proposed to authorize the issuance of such a faculty 21 days from 5 May 2-26 which would allow the families the opportunity to remove the items voluntarily [7].
He added that to the extent that any of the families concerned would not have interred the cremated remains of a family member had the Regulations been expressly brought to their attention in advance, this may well be a basis upon which the remains might be exhumed and reburied in another Christian burial ground, as an exception to the presumption of permanence enunciated in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299. A faculty would be required but he was content to indicate (i) that the Court was likely to look favourably on any petition and (ii) that the prescribed fees would be waived. [Re St. Thomas Stanningley [2026] ECC Lee 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
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
Name: The Revd ROBERT PAUL DILLINGHAM
Diocese: Chichester
Date imposed: 20th April 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Grounds of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life
Name: The Revd TOM BIRCH
Diocese: Newcastle
Date imposed: 10th March 2026
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Grounds of Misconduct: 8(1)(aa) failing to comply with the duty under section 5 of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016; 8(1)(c) neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office; and 8(1)(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Rebuke and Injunction
Name: The Revd Canon JONATHAN (Jonnie) SAMUEL PARKIN
Diocese: Bristol
Date imposed: 6th March 2026
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: Removal from office, injunction & limited prohibition for 3 years (with effect from 23rd May 2026).
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 2026 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 2 July 2026. The last set of published minutes is for the meeting on Thursday 22 October 2025.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Church Treasure
- Sale of church treasures: Re St Peter, Little Budworth, (19 May 2026).
Churchyards
- Burial of pets in churchyards – an overview, (1 June 2026).
- The Green Man/Foliate Head as a symbol in the context of Christian memorialisation, (26 May 2026).
[Top]
Updated: 1 June 2026 at 17:07.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.