Re St. Margaret Halstead [2026] ECC Roc 1
The Petitioner’s mother died in 2013 and was buried in the churchyard of St. Margaret Halstead. Because the porous stone had not aged well, the memorial stone over her grave was replaced in 2021 including a small ceramic photograph, (see [11]). Her father, Squadron Leader Galletly died in 2024, and permission was now sought for a new and larger headstone with two ceramic photographs, repeating the details of her late mother and adding his details and the RAF crest (for which the appropriate permission had been obtained)[1].
Willink Ch. observed [at 2]:
“If this were the whole story, this matter would not call for a written judgment. However, this matter concerns the inclusion of photographs on churchyard memorials. There is, on the plinth of the current memorial, a small ceramic photograph of the petitioner’s late mother. No permission for that had been sought or obtained from the court. The petitioner does, however, now petition for the addition of a similar ceramic photograph of her late father to match or mirror that of her late mother”.
The petition was treated as being for a confirmatory faculty in respect of the first photograph, and for a prospective faculty in respect of the second. On account of of this, it warranted a fully-reasoned decision [3].
Faculties for memorials – the principles
Citing Hodge Ch. in Re All Saints Calverton [2021] ECC Oxf 7 (on the threefold purpose of a grave memorial[4]), and following the dicta in the judgment of the Court of Arches in Re St. Giles Exhall [2021] EACC 1 (which determined that the court does not require a petitioner to satisfy any exceptionality test before a faculty for a memorial would be granted[5]), Willink Ch. noted that the burden of proof always lies on the petitioner to persuade the court to grant a faculty; to that limited extent, there is a presumption, or default position, that no faculty will be granted.
However, “the petitioner simply has to satisfy that burden of proof by establishing, to the usual civil standard of the balance of probabilities, that there is a good reason why the faculty should be granted. Broadly, the more egregious the departure from the Regulations, the more justification would be required before the burden of proof is discharged. And the court will always want to be alive to particular issues concerning the individual churchyard concerned, which is why the views of the incumbent and PCC are relevant[6]
Confirmatory faculties – the principles
The Chancellor stated [emphasis added]:
“[7] As a general principle, a confirmatory faculty should only be granted if a faculty would have been granted for the work if one had been sought at the appropriate time, before the work was carried out: see, for example, Re All Saints Buncton [2018] ECC Chi 1. It requires exceptional circumstances to diverge from this principle; and the mere fact that work has been carried out without authorisation, and expenditure incurred, is not a relevant factor.
[8]. It is clear that pastoral reasons can be sufficiently compelling to warrant the grant of a confirmatory faculty for a memorial in circumstances where a prospective faculty would not have been granted. However, recent cases where this has been found to be the case have tended to have the distinguishing feature that those in positions of responsibility in the parish had been involved, even to the point of approving the memorial, before its introduction: see for example Re St. Mary Middleton [2022] ECC Lee 3“.
Photographs on memorials
“[9]. A refusal to permit photographs on memorials was one of the most universal aspects of older versions of Diocesan Churchyard Regulations across the Church of England, which were recently collated and analysed by the Ecclesiastical Judges Association’s Working Group on Churchyard Regulations. The Regulations in over three quarters of all dioceses expressly prohibited them; and in the remainder, they were generally prohibited by implication. In none were photographs expressly permitted.
[10]. In the new model Regulations being introduced (with some variations) across the Church of England following the recommendations of that Working Group, any motif, emblem or image on a memorial is only permitted if it ‘is of a character commonly found in churchyard memorials‘. Given the previous history, this plainly excludes photographs”.
The present case: the original memorial
The Chancellor accepted that the original, 2013, memorial included a small ceramic photograph of Margaret Galletly on the headstone, although he had seen no confirmatory photographs.
“In order for the photograph to be a lawful introduction, it would have required the authority of a faculty; and there is no evidence in the Registry files that any such faculty was applied for. I am in no doubt that, had it been, it would have been refused“.
He further noted that if the photograph had remained on the headstone since 2013, it would by now be too late for him to require its removal, save as a condition to the grant of a permissive faculty[12]
The replacement memorial
In the papers submitted in support of the present petition, there was a curious document. On its face it appeared to be a signed and dated faculty petition by Squadron Leader Galletly concerning the 2021 replacement of his late wife’s memorial; but there is no evidence that such a petition was ever, in fact, lodged. This was subsequently referred to it as the draft petition.
The draft petition suggested that the proposal was for a like-for-like replacement for the existing, weathered stone; but it gave no indication either that the old memorial had a photograph attached, or that the photograph would be transferred to the new one. If, therefore, a petition had been filed in accordance with the draft petition, then the inclusion of any photograph would have rendered the memorial non-compliant with the permission that would undoubtedly have been given[13].
There were differing recollections of the specific approvals sought: from the petitioner he incumbent, who was clear that he had not given permission for anything to do with a photograph on the memorial. “Whatever the position, the authority of a faculty should have (again) been sought in 2021[14].
The present petition
The petitioner sought permission for a memorial headstone including two ceramic photographs. The reason put forward by the petitioner is to fulfil the wishes of her father, on which the Chancellor recorded that the petition had the support of the incumbent; and the DAC raised no objection to the photographs, on pastoral grounds, since one photograph was already in place[16]. Willink Ch. reiterated the relevant legal principle, viz, that the presence of photographs would be an egregious and significant departure both from the existing Churchyard Regulations of the Diocese and the position common across the Church of England; and therefore would need a significantly good reason for allowing it. He also set out the reasons for the petitioner’s personal wishes[17].
Addressing the advice of the DAC, on which he took full note, he stated:
“[18] I have concerns that the pastoral difficulties which can be expected to arise in the future, if other bereaved families are told that they are not permitted to have photographs on their loved one’s memorial despite their perpetual presence on this one, are not adequately weighed in the balance – for perfectly understandable reasons, since they are future and to some extent hypothetical, whereas the immediate pastoral concern is present and real.
[19] …I am clear that the reason given is insufficient to displace the strong presumption against photographs on memorials…But now is an appropriate moment to return matters to how they should always have been.
[20]. I will grant a faculty for the proposed memorial, but subject to the condition that there will be no photographs affixed or displayed on it”.
The above discussion is based upon reported judgment Re St. Margaret Halstead [2026] ECC Roc 1; its importance lies in the express prohibition of photographs on memorials in over three quarters of all dioceses, and the implied prohibition in the remainder. In none were photographs expressly permitted.
Nevertheless, this post does not purport to give legal or technical advice, or technical analysis of the issues discussed. Situation-specific advice from experts in the area should be sought where potential problems have been identified.