Memorials

The petitioner sought retrospective permission for a replacement memorial introduced into the churchyard in 2019 by a firm of stonemasons without permission being first obtained. The stonemasons had left the remains of a previous memorial on the grave (kerbs and chippings) in the undergrowth of the churchyard. The Parochial Church Council members unanimously objected to the retrospective application, because they said that the memorial would not be in keeping with the churchyard and because it was installed without permission. The Chancellor took the view that the memorial would not be out of keeping in the churchyard, that it was better than the memorial it replaced, and that it would not be appropriate to order its removal. The Chancellor considered that the stonemasons had been remiss in several aspects of this matter and decided that they should be required to pay a substantial proportion of the costs of the application.

The Chancellor granted a restitution order for the removal of a memorial which had been placed in the churchyard without permission.

The Chancellor refused to permit on a headstone a design of two intersecting triangles and a '12 spoked Dharmachakra', an Indian religious symbol, as he could not see in the design anything consistent with the three general principles of honouring the dead, comforting the living, and informing posterity, nor was there anything in the design to indicate the Christian hope of resurrection. 

The petitioners wished to install in the churchyard a memorial which was outside the churchyards regulations. It is described in the judgment as "of lawn design, with kerbstones, to be in black granite and with the addition, within the kerbs, of  a Sadshalil Grey ‘pathway to heaven’ – a curved, raised area running the length of the grave from its foot to the headstone itself". Letters of objection were received from the Rector, churchwardens, and some members of the Parochial Church Council. The petitioners argued that a number of memorials with kerbs had been introduced in the past, notwithstanding the regulations. The Chancellor, accepting the parish's desire to 'draw a line' and enforce the regulations, declined to approve the proposed memorial.

The Commonwealth Graves Commission applied for permission to erect in the churchyard a War Grave memorial to a soldier who died in 1918 of a disease acquired in France, whilst on active service. The exact position of his grave in the churchyard was unknown. But the Chancellor agreed to grant a faculty for the erection of the memorial.

In the particular circumstances of this case, the Chancellor found reasons to justify the grant of a faculty authorising a memorial of light grey Cornish granite, which is not covered by the churchyard regulations: the deceased had a connection with Cornwall; there were two Cornish light grey memorials already in the same row as the grave of the deceased, and one in the next row; and the stone was not far removed in the appearance from the majority of local stones in the churchyard.

The Petitioner wished to add the word 'Beloved' to the memorial on his father's grave, on a blank line before the words 'Father, Teacher, Linguist'. The incumbent and one of the churchwardens became parties opponent and there were two parishioners who submitted letters of objection. In 2010 the petitioner had been convicted of murdering his father, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the murder, the petitioner had buried his father's body under concrete and had made a pretence to the community that his father was still alive. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He concluded that, given the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to allow the word 'Beloved' to be added to the memorial, and would be likely to give offence to the local community. Furthermore, the word would appear to the public as an expression of the petitioner's continuing denial of the offence for which he had been convicted.

A faculty was granted for a memorial in the form of an urn.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a proposed memorial which included kerbs.

The petitioner sought permission for a memorial consisting of an upright stone and a horizontal slab to mark a family grave containing four interments. This type of memorial was not within the current churchyards regulations, but there were other graves with memorials of this type in the churchyard. The Chancellor considered that it was only equitable in the circumstances to grant a faculty.