Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during June 2025
The nine consistory court judgments circulated in June 2025 included: Reordering,
extensions and other building works; Exhumation; and Churchyards and burials. This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Reports from the Independent Reviewer; Privy Council Business; Other legal issues; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works 
Reordering and alternative uses
Re All Saints Ryde [2025] ECC Por 3 The church, designed by Gilbert Scott in the nineteenth century, is listed Grade II* and is the only church left open in Ryde. The congregation had become greatly diminished and the proposal was to carry out extensive reordering with the aim of revitalising ministry in Ryde by growing a Holy Trinity Brompton-style congregation, modelled on the Harbour Church in Portsmouth. To this end, the proposals included removing the remaining pews (there had been removals of pews in 1968, 1973 and 2008), in order to provide flexible space for both traditional and modern worship. The Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting to the removal of all the pews and also the removal of the Victorian tiles in the aisle and between the north and south porches. A compromise was agreed between the Victorian Society and the petitioners (leaving some pews and retaining the tiles), which led to the Victorian Society withdrawing its objections. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals, and he granted a faculty. [Re All Saints Ryde [2025] ECC Por 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. Mary Headington [2025] ECC Oxf 5 Approval was sought for: (1) the creation of an extension to the north side of the church, accommodating a vestry and two WCs; and (2) extensive works of repair, renovation and refurbishment to the main church building, together with associated external works. The church was built between 1956 and 1958 and was unlisted. Following the condemnation and demolition of the former church hall in 2017, the church had no accessible toilets or facilities for catering for small group activities, such as work with children. Notwithstanding the reservations of the Twentieth Century Society concerning the design of the extension, the Chancellor granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary Headington [2025] ECC Oxf 5] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary Magdalene Woodstock [2025] ECC Oxf 4 The Parochial Church
Council wished to install solar panels on the roofs of the south nave and the south aisle of the Grade II* listed church. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that views of the proposed panels would be extremely restricted due to the shallow slopes of the roofs behind a parapet and also tree cover. The Chancellor stated that the Church of England’s target of ‘net zero’ carbon emissions by 2030 and the Anglican Communion’s Five Marks of Mission, which included ‘to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth’ were factors to be taken into consideration in determining the petition. He commended the parish for “their vision and commitment to the goal of ‘net zero’”. [Re St., Mary Magdalene Woodstock [2025] ECC Oxf 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re An Exhumation [2025] ECC Por 1 On the day before an interment of ashes, a relative of the deceased pointed out to the curate that the hole prepared for the ashes was not in the right plot. After consultation between the curate and the rector, a hole was dug in the correct plot. At a service for the interment of the ashes, the family left after the ashes (inside a bag) had been placed in the correct plot which had been dug and before the plot was filled in.
The verger subsequently insisted that the ashes were in the wrong plot and, after consultation with the rector and the curate, the ashes were interred in the first plot. When the family was informed that the ashes had been moved, they said that the plot where the ashes had been place at the interment service was the correct plot.
The rector, without consulting the archdeacon or the Diocesan Registry, dug up the ashes and interred them in the correct plot. He then applied for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor accepted that there had been a mistake, but pointed out that an exhumation should not take place without proper authority, and he ordered the rector to pay the costs of the preparation of the judgment. [Re An Exhumation [2025] ECC Por 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 3 The petitioner’s son had died aged 16 in 2011 after being struck by a car driven by a drunken driver. His death was witnessed by several of his school friends; and the family’s small, semi-rural community was deeply affected by the tragedy. Following his death, he was subjected to a Home Office post-mortem, standard in such cases, and additionally a second post-mortem ordered by the defence [4].
His school had put pressure on the petitioner to have a funeral carried out before the GCSE period started [4], and the Coroner had told the petitioner that the only option at the time was burial, though the petitioner had preferred cremation [10]. The petitioner was not informed that her son was to be buried in a consecrated part of the burial ground, nor of the legal implications of interment in consecrated ground. She now wished to have her son’s body exhumed and cremated, so that she could retain his cremated remains until her own death, when she wished his remains and her own to be buried together.
The Chancellor considered that “there was a fundamental mistake of fact on the part of the petitioner as to the nature of the grave plot in which she had agreed to have her son’s body interred, and its legal consequences” [28]. This and other additional special factors led the Chancellor to decide that it was appropriate to grant a faculty [28 (1) to (8)]. [Re Kidlington Parish Burial Ground [2025] ECC Oxf 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Lambeth Cemetery [2025] ECC Swk 2 In distressing circumstances, the remains of a child (A) aged 8 had been buried in the consecrated part of a local authority cemetery. The family were unaware of the fact of consecration or its consequences. Informed by the local authority that their exclusive right of burial would end in 2033 if not renewed [8], the family applied for a faculty to exhume the remains, for them to be cremated and to be kept at home until they were scattered after the death of those who had known A.
The Chancellor held that there were exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation as proposed. He also permitted the exhumation of the ashes of the boy’s uncle; these had been buried in the same grave as A because of the family relationship. The Chancellor disagreed with the view of the Legal Advisory Commission that the scattering of ashes was necessarily contrary to Canon Law, taking the view that this depended on whether it was reverent or not. He also explained that the fact that an exclusive right of burial had come to an end did not end the protection of the grave by the Consistory Court, although it might be the case that any memorial could be removed. [Re Lambeth Cemetery [2025] ECC Swk 2] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Gravesend and Milton Cemetery [2025] ECC Roc 1 The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her husband exhumed from the consecrated part of the Gravesend and Milton Cemetery and reinterred in a plot in a cemetery in France where she and her husband’s family lived [1]. Her husband was born to French parents in England and he had served in the SOE during the Second World War and had received high French military honours. He and his wife had subsequently moved to France to work and live near his family, and he had died in 1979, when his remains were interred in a reserved plot his wife’s home town of Gravesend. There was a double compartment in the casket containing the deceased’s ashes, where it was intended that the petitioner’s ashes would be added in due course.
The Willink Ch gave his decision after a period of careful consideration, on 15th April, so the petitioner would have the longest possible period of notice of it before any events of VE Day [9];
The Chancellor, following the guidelines in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, could not find any exceptional circumstances to override the normal presumption of permanence of Christian burial and he therefore refused to grant a faculty. [Re Gravesend and Milton Cemetery [2025] ECC Roc 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re Kingston Cemetery Fratton [2025] ECC Por 2 A boy had died, aged 8, in 2023. Under pressure from the boy’s grandmother his body was buried near relatives in Kingston Cemetery. The boy’s mother, would have preferred cremation, suffered deep grief, for which she received medical treatment. Neither the parents nor their son was of the Christian faith, and some time later the parents learned that the boy’s body had been buried in a consecrated part of the cemetery.
The mother, with the consent of the father, petitioned for exhumation, so that her son’s body could be cremated and the ashes interred elsewhere. Before the date for exhumation, the father, who had separated from his wife, withdrew his consent, stating that he had recently become a Christian and “the situation does not feel right to me.”
The Chancellor set aside the faculty for exhumation and referred the case to the Deputy Chancellor, who considered that there were exceptional grounds to grant a faculty for exhumation and cremation. It had been a mistake in 2023 for the boy’s body to be buried in consecrated ground when the parents had previously declared themselves to be atheists. [Re Kingston Cemetery Fratton [2025] ECC Por 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
- Designation of closed churchyard
- Churchyard Regulations
- Reservation of grave space
- Trees
- Environmental Permit
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Martin Ryarsh [2025] ECC Roc 2 The churchyard surrounding St Martin’s Church, Ryarsh, was nearly full with space for only two to three more years of interments and no plans to extend the churchyard. When the court received two petitions for reservations of grave spaces in the churchyard, “it presented an opportunity for the court to set out in a judgment the approach which will be taken in this diocese to such petitions, and in particular when burial space is limited” [1].
The personal circumstances of the two petitioners were significantly different: in the first case (“the first petitioner”), a man aged 54, who did not live in the parish and was not on the electoral roll, wished to reserve a grave for himself and his son aged 21. The second petitioner was 85 and her husband was 88. She lived in the parish, was on the church’s electoral roll and attended the church. Neither she nor her husband had relatives interred in the churchyard [4].
The PCC supported both petitions and the Chancellor was told that this support was felt to be appropriate, given the absence of a formal policy on reservations, although it was not for the court to look behind a corporate decision to try discern its motivation [4]. However, since the second petitioner brought her petition, her husband has passed away and was interred in the churchyard. In the circumstances, the question of a reservation had fallen away; but as set out in [1], it was the intention of Willink Ch. to take the opportunity of this judgment to set out the approach of the court to such petitions, and so he continued [6].
With regard to faculties for a reservation, the court’s approach was:
“[8]. It had been the practice in this diocese, for many years, for the court to grant a faculty for a reservation, if supported by the PCC and the incumbent, to last until the petitioner would turn 100…
[9] This practice was contrary to that now applied in other dioceses across the Church of England, as demonstrated in the decisions of Hodge Ch. in Re St. Mary Thame [2022] ECC Oxf 2 and Hill Ch. in Re St. Leodegar Hunston [2023] ECC Chi 1, and the cases referred to in them and subsequently referring to them. That practice is, therefore, no longer applied in this diocese.
“It is now widely accepted across the dioceses of the Church of England that reservation of grave spaces should not be allowed to have the effect of curtailing the legal right of another person – as yet unidentifiable, but still certainly existing – to be interred in the graveyard. Still less will they be granted where this is the intended effect (that is, to “jump the queue”, deliberately denying another person of the exercise of their right of interment). The only way to avoid this is to ensure that the duration of any faculty is restricted to, at most, the period for which space for interments is expected to remain available”.
The Chancellor added:
“I would add that if a faculty is granted for a reservation for a limited period, it remains open to the petitioner to apply for an extension of the period at any time, should their personal circumstances change or in the event that more space becomes available in the churchyard such as by the consecration of an extension to the churchyard or a policy on re-use of older graves being adopted”
The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the first petitioner:
“[12]. To grant a faculty for the time for which grave spaces will be available would be pointless; to grant one for longer would inevitably cause injustice to those with the right of interment in the churchyard who would consequently not be able to exercise that right.”
In the second case, the petitioner, who was aged 85 and lived in the parish and attended the church, wished to reserve a double-depth grave for herself and her husband aged 88. After the petition was presented, the petitioner’s husband had died and was buried in the churchyard. However, the Chancellor stated that, had the petitioner’s husband not died, the Chancellor would have granted a faculty in view of the couple’s entitlement to burial in the churchyard and their advanced ages [14]. [Re St. Martin Ryarsh [2025] ECC Roc 2] [[Top of section] [Top of page].
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: Church of St Mary Old Churchyard, Tunstead, Norfolk; St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Gosport, Hampshire; St Andrew’s Churchyard, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire.
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 ISAAC LAWRENCE
Diocese: Carlisle
Date imposed: 10th June 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground 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
Penalty: Rebuke
Safeguarding
Makin Review – next stages announced. On 5 June 2025, the Church of England issued the following Press Release on the initiation of proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure. The National Safeguarding Team (NST) will now initiate proceedings under the CDM against: Bishop Paul Butler; Revd Roger Combes; Revd Sue Colman; Revd Andrew Cornes; Revd Tim Hastie-Smith, Revd Nick Stott; and Revd John Woolmer. No further action under the CDM will be taken against: Bishop George Carey; Revd Paul Perkin; and Revd Hugh Palmer. (5 June 2025).
A Statement from the Diocese of Leicester: “Following the BBC News Online article, we wish to make it very clear that Bishop Martyn did not accuse Jay Hulme of practising “witchcraft”. Indeed, he is deeply disturbed that this accusation has been made. He did question Mr Hulme with regard to complaints that had been made against him – complaints which included (in Mr Hulme’s words in the BBC interview) reference to conducting a séance in a church (something he later described as a “joke”) and reference to consulting a friend who is a tarot card reader. The Church of England has never supported such actions and therefore it was entirely appropriate for the bishop to ask about their veracity (given that Mr Hulme is exploring becoming a priest in the Church of England). This is a long way from accusing someone of being a “witch”.”
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 10 July 2025.
Update: Archbishop Church in Wales – Further to the recent Church in Wales Press Release Statement on Bangor Cathedral Visitation Report implementation (supra) and the earlier statements concerning the Visitation, on the evening of 27 June 2025 a Statement was issued from the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Revd. Andrew John, announcing his immediate retirement as Archbishop of Wales and as Bishop of Bangor on August 31st. This was accompanied by a Statements on behalf of the Bench of Bishops of the Church in Wales, and by Professor Medwin Hughes, Chair of the Representative Body of the Church in Wales. (27 June 2025).
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Exhumation
- Burial in the wrong plot – a cautionary tale, the recent case Re An Exhumation [2025] ECC Por 1 followed the confusion in distinguishing between “the Correct Plot” and “the Incorrect Plot” of cremation ashes, (1 July 2025).
- Scattering ashes – Church of England, In Re Lambeth Cemetery [2025] ECC Swk 2, Petchey Ch. addressed the scattering of crenation ashes, [26] to [31], and whether it was unlawful for an Anglican minister to scatter cremated remains as opposed to strewing (12 June 2025).
General/Miscellaneous
- Bangor Cathedral Visitation – Statement on Visitation Report implementation, (24 June 2025).
- Makin Review – next stages announced. (5 June 2025).[Top]
Updated: 30 June 2025 at 08:18.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.
Thank you. I shall send any comments in due course.