Intinction and the common cup: a reading list was posted on 21 Jul 2026 in Christianity by the Revd Anthony Smith, a Priest in Charge of the ‘Riverside’ group of parishes near Darlington, and is reproduced with permission.

‘Intinction’ means ‘dipping’, and it refers to the practice of dipping the bread (usually a wafer) into the wine as part of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Mass).

I’ve been dipping into the topic a little, far enough to gather a short reading list (also covering related topics, such as individual communion cups). I haven’t read all of the articles listed below, and I’m unlikely to take it much further any time soon, so I thought I’d deposit my notes here for future reference. It might even be useful to someone else, who knows.

First, a brief summary…

There are very few references to intinction in the early centuries of church history. It might have been introduced in some places as a way of making the bread easier to swallow for the sick or for young children. It is difficult to know when the practice arose, but in the Eastern Orthodox Church today, the bread and wine are mixed together and then served using a spoon. Intinction was a controversial practice in the Western (Roman) Church, and it was banned in the thirteenth century. In the Roman Catholic Church, the laity received only the bread (the host) between around 1415 and 1970, so intinction wasn’t a live issue in recent times prior to 1970. In other churches, it seems to have become more popular since the early twentieth century, in response to growing awareness of the role of germs in spreading diseases.

The two links in the summary above are to the best articles I have found so far as entry-points into the topic (also mentioned below):

• ‘Intinction: An Historical, Exegetical, and Systematic-Theological Examination’, by Lane B. Keister, published in 2018 in the Mid-America Journal of Theology (MAJT). Originally written in the context of debates around 2012 in the Presbyterian Church in America, with numerous references to other sources, the focus is on the history of intinction in the early church and in the Reformed tradition, and on the exegesis of key biblical texts.
• ‘Germ Panic and Chalice Hygiene in the Church of England, c.1895–1930’, by Andrew Atherstone, first published in 2025 in the Journal of Religious History. This article documents a very important period of history both for the move towards intinction and for the move towards individual communion cups, in response the new science of germs and subsequent widespread public concern about hygiene.

In dictionaries and encyclopaedias, there are brief entries on ‘Intinction’ in A New Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (SCM) (see under ‘Communion’ in its successor, The New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship), in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and in An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church. Wikipedia also has an article on the topic.

In the Church of England, current practice is that intinction is generally discouraged but not actually prohibited in the Church of England as a whole, although it is prohibited in quite a few dioceses. Examples of diocesan guidance in which intinction is strongly discouraged include:

• Diocese in Europe: ‘A note about receiving Holy Communion by intinction’.
• Diocese of London: ‘Intinction of wafers’ as part of some Communion guidelines.

The Church of England’s Legal Advisory Commission of the General Synod issued a legal opinion way back in ‘January 1991, revised September 2003’ on ‘Holy Communion: administration of the Sacrament’ (also available as a PDF). This includes a lot of detail about individual cups and a smaller amount about intinction. However, the current version includes the following note at the top:

“At its meeting on 13 June 2024, the Legal Advisory Commission noted that there are two respectable views on the matter of the use of individual cups at Holy Communion.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Church of England guidance was issued in mid-2020 on ‘Holy Communion and the distribution of the elements’, in which the common cup was suspended. This led to an intense debate on the use of individual cups:

• Various responses are linked from a Thinking Anglicans blog post of 27 August 2020 …
• … including a legal opinion on ‘The legality of the use of individual cups for communion wine in the Church of England’ (also here).
• Thomas Renz published numerous articles on the topic on his own blog, as well as a post on the Psephizo blog
• A post on the Law & Religion UK blog from March 2021 contains links to various resources.
• Andrew Atherstone wrote a Grove Booklet on the topic, ‘Drink This, All of You’: Individual Cups at Holy Communion, which is described in a post on the Psephizo blog.
• That blog post refers to Andrew Atherstone’s significant article on an important period in the history of the Church of England regarding individual cups and intinction, ‘Germ Panic and Chalice Hygiene in the Church of England, c.1895–1930’, originally published on 19 September 2025.

Subsequent Church of England guidance was issued in December 2020 regarding intinction, using the language of ‘simultaneous administration’, where the priest (rather than the communicant) dips the wafer into the wine (otherwise known as ‘priestly intinction’). That guidance is available on the Thinking Anglicans website (linked from a blog post).

The Church of England website still contains a page with Coronavirus (COVID-19) guidance. This page includes a link to a July 2022 document, ‘Opening and managing church buildings’, which says the following under ‘Administration of Holy Communion’:

“If communicants do not wish to receive in both kinds, they may do so by receiving only the bread (communion in one kind) or the president may dip the bread in the wine before giving it to the communicant (simultaneous administration). Intinction by the communicant is not recommended.”

More recent discussion in the Church of England has been on the topic of gluten-free bread and alcohol-free wine, precipitated by a question posed at General Synod.

• A press release was issued by the Church of England on 10 February 2025: No, we’re not banning ‘gluten-free’ bread or ‘non-alcoholic’ Communion wine
• Andrew Atherstone wrote a post on the Law & Religion UK blog, which was published on 17 February 2025: ‘Wheat bread and fermented wine at Holy Communion? The origins of Canon B17’
• That same blog has an update on the topic from 10 July 2025: ‘Progress on those unable to consume gluten and/or alcohol at Holy Communion?’

In the Anglican Communion more widely, the Lambeth Conference of 1948 had the following resolution:

“Resolution 118: Administration of Holy Communion

The Conference holds that administration from a common chalice, being scriptural and having a spiritual meaning of great value, should continue to be the normal method of administration in the Anglican Communion; but is of opinion that there is no objection to administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican Communion by provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the discretion of individual priests.”

Outside the Church of England, there was quite a debate on the topic of intinction in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) around 2012, with the 40th General Assembly in 2012 giving ‘initial approval’ to an amendment ‘to prohibit the practice of intinction in communion’, which was then not approved by the presbyteries and was therefore taken no further, as noted at the 41st General Assembly in 2013.

• The most detailed treatment I have found on the topic of intinction is a paper by Lane B. Keister published in 2018, ‘Intinction: An Historical, Exegetical, and Systematic-Theological Examination’.
• An earlier (December 2012) version of that paper (which contains some additional material at the end) is linked from a blog post from 20 April 2020 by Cameron Schaffer: ‘A Personal Journey on Intinction’.
• There are a few posts on intinction on the website of byFaith , which is ‘the magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America’, such as the following from 2012: ‘The Intinction Debate’, ‘Adiaphora and Intinction’, and ‘Update on Intinction Vote: Six in Favor of BCO Change, 12 Against’.
• More recently, R. Scott Clark has a post from 2021: [John] ‘Owen Gives Us Theological Reasons To Object To Intinction’, which contains a few helpful links at the end.
• Also from the PCA stable is a blog post from 29 March 2025 by O. Palmer Robertson: ‘Should you Dip the Bread in the Wine at the Lord’s Supper?’.

On the same side of the pond, in The Episcopal Church, I came across a couple of articles:

• From 1945, there is an article by Gardiner Mumford Day on ‘The Importance of Intinction’.
• From 2025, there is an article by Matthew S. C. Olver of The Living Church: ‘It’s Time to Retire Intinction: An Open Letter to the Bishops of The Episcopal Church’

That post has some helpful links to the science, including ‘Holy Communion and Infection Transmission: A Literature Review’ by Dimitrios Anyfantakis (2020).

In the Roman Catholic Church, the laity received only the bread (the host) until 1970 (following Vatican II), after which practice has been governed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as described in various places.

Plenty to read, if anyone is inclined to delve deeper into the topic!

Cite this article as Anthony Smith “Intinction and the common cup: a reading list ” in Law & Religion UK, 24 July 2026, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2026/07/24/intinction-and-the-common-cup-a-reading-list/.

Etherington Ch had begun by pointing out that the general rule governing exhumation from consecrated ground for reburial elsewhere was that “this is their final resting place and exhumation will only be permitted where there is an exceptional justification for it (subject to provisions covering urgent judicial or police investigations of suspicious death)” [2]. The leading authority for that assertion was Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, 4 All ER 482 [3].

Etherington Ch fully understood that dementia was very distressing and often involved extremely difficult decisions by the sufferer’s family [18]. AA and the family had acceded to their mother’s wish to have her late husband buried in the cemetery at Lavender Hill, and it was not clear that their mother understood her late husband’s wish to be buried in South Wales [19]. Further:

“Unless she was mentally incompetent, RS’s wishes are likely to have been paramount in any event, but even if she was unable to make an informed decision, AA and the family decided in her interests to override the promise made to HS and bury his mortal remains at LHC. Many would think that this was entirely the correct decision and likely to have been one of which HS would have approved in those circumstances” [20].

When RS died in 2014, AA and the family decided to have her buried in the same cemetery, and it was likely that

“this is where RS had wished to be buried as I am not told of any expression of any wish by her to be buried in Wales and, in any event, she would doubtless have wished to be interred in a grave with or adjacent to that of her husband who was buried in LHC” [21].

In conclusion, he was not convinced that either HS or RS would have wished their place of rest to be disturbed “many, many years (30 and 12 respectively) after their original burials” [28]. Petitions dismissed [29]. [With thanks to Ray Hemingray.]

On Thursday, the Government published Tying the knot: reforming weddings law in England and Wales: consultation document. Its proposals follow the Law Commission’s 2022 report, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law and the Government’s announcement of its intention to reform the law. The document states that the Government’s approach to reform is guided by four principles, which underpin all the proposals in the consultation:

• Providing a simple, fair and inclusive framework and establishing a clear, coherent and consistent legal structure for weddings, to ensure fairness across different groups through a common set of rules and enabling non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, to conduct legally binding ceremonies.
• Expanding choice as to how and where couples marry, to allow greater flexibility over the location and form of weddings, so that ceremonies can better reflect couples’ beliefs and circumstances.
• Upholding the dignity and significance of marriage, to ensure that all weddings meet clear and consistent standards of dignity through a comprehensive framework governing ceremonies and locations, supported by oversight of officiants and clear criteria for organisations to preserve the integrity of marriage.
• Protecting against forced, predatory and sham marriages by strengthening safeguards through a more effective system of checks and greater transparency to ensure that marriages are entered into freely, with informed consent and are not used to gain unfair advantage.

The closing date for responses is 24 September, either online here or to: Family Justice Policy Team, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ:  weddingslawconsultation@justice.gov.uk.

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Protecting built heritage

The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report, Protecting Built Heritage, was published on 13 July. It highlights the growing challenges facing England’s historic buildings, particularly listed places of worship. The Committee notes that there are around 14,800 listed places of worship in England, the majority belonging to the Church of England, and warns that they face mounting financial, demographic and organisational pressures.

The report expresses concern that replacing the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme with the Places of Worship Renewal Fund could disadvantage historically significant buildings outside areas of socio-economic deprivation. It recommends that funding should be maintained at least at previous real-terms levels and that eligibility should balance heritage value with measures of deprivation.

The Committee also suggests that the current VAT regime discourages the repair and reuse of historic buildings by making restoration more expensive than new construction. It recommends targeted VAT relief for listed buildings and wider reform to remove incentives favouring demolition over conservation.

Recognising the sector’s heavy reliance on volunteers, the Committee ]calls for funded professional support to reduce volunteer burnout. It also urges improvements to the planning system, including greater consistency in decision-making and better integration of heritage conservation with sustainability objectives such as retrofit and net-zero.

Meanwhile in Scotland…

On Tuesday, The Herald reported that Culture Secretary Màiri McAllan, on behalf of the Scottish Government, said that, despite receiving extra money under the Barnett Formula linked to the Places of Worship Renewal Fund for England, it has “limited options” as to what it can do to help church buildings.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been published: here. It has been set down for second reading on 11 September.

Assisted dying in France

RFI (Radio France Internationale) reports that France’s National Assembly has given its definitive backing to legislation granting terminally ill adults the right to end their lives with medical assistance, bringing to a close a protracted and often fraught political battle. On Wednesday, Deputies voted 291 to 241 in favour: the fourth time the lower house has approved the text. Last year, the bill also cleared the Assembly but was rejected by the Senate. In view of this resistance, the Government permitted the Assembly to have the final say without the Senate’s consent – a mechanism permitted under the Constitution.

The report states that “euthanasia involves a doctor or other healthcare professional administering a lethal injection at the patient’s request, while medically assisted suicide typically involves the patient voluntarily taking lethal medication that a doctor has prescribed”.

The Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, intends to refer the text to the Constitutional Council for review.

Quick links

• Ruth Deech, The Guardian: David Lammy’s proposed cohabitation law would be bad for couples – and worse for some women: a negative view of the proposal to confer rights on cohabiting partners.

And finally…

Premier Christian News reports that the Church of Norway had temporarily changed its logo to the Church of England’s cross to commemorate England’s World Cup victory.

It explained: “…after the airline Norwegian first challenged British Airways to a bet, stating on Instagram: “If Norway wins, you have to switch to our logo on Instagram on Sunday (one day). And vice versa. Deal?”, Den Norske Kirke then posted a challenge of its own to the CofE, asking: “Ready to risk your logo?” The Church of England responded: “We know our logo will look great on you.”

Akvavit all round!

Hill Ch, Re All Saints, Featherstone [2025] ECC Lee 1

However, it is not always well-served by those providing it with information, as demonstrated in three cases circulated this week: Re St. Peter Wrecclesham [2026] ECC Gui 1, Re St. Peter Wrecclesham [2026] ECC Gui 2, and Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon (Number 2) [2026] ECC B&W 2.

The Wrecclesham cases

Both cases concern the reservation of burial space. In memoranda dated 31 January 2026, Whitehouse Dep. Ch. gave provisional decisions that neither Petition would be granted since the parish had informed the Registry that there were only eight grave spaces left in the churchyard; there had been a total of seven burials over the past three years, indicating that the grave spaces would all be used within the next three years.

Since then, further information was provided to the Court which was contrary to that provided to the Registry. This  indicated that there were, in fact, 96 possible available grave spaces – “a material change in circumstances” ([2] and [3], both judgments, et seq.).

In each case, the respective Petitioner(s) had first approached the then incumbent in about January 2022. On 19 July 2023, the PCC noted that a request to reserve a plot for a couple (who were not named in the Minutes, but were Mr and Mrs West) (and likewise for Mrs Clarke) had been received and the PCC “agreed unanimously” [6].

The Petitioner(s) “then paid the required fee and were provided with markers identifying and reserving the plot. It appears that they were not told that the Petition would be referred to the Consistory Court. Instead, they were given a clear and reasonable expectation that the plot had been approved” [7].

The Petitions were not lodged with the Registry until September 2025 and it was at that point that they were sent to the Chancellor and Deputy Chancellor, who noted: “It has been impossible to establish why it took, possibly, as long as three years and nine months to reach that point. The parish is now in an interregnum and no correspondence has been made available to explain the delay” [8].

The provisional decisions to refuse the Petitions were given in separate Memoranda on 31 January 2026. Those decisions were made “because, as a general principle, when the number of available grave spaces is very limited a faculty will not normally be granted unless the Petitioner can show that there is sufficient justification for the court to take an exceptional course” [9].

Subsequently, the Assistant Archdeacon of Dorking visited the parish in April 2026 and was shown the churchyard, as well as a plan of the churchyard marking all the grave spaces, both occupied and those that are still available. The plan indicated that, contrary to the information provided with the original Petition, there were potentially 96 available grave spaces [10]. The Deputy Chancellor was informed that “the reason that the full number of vacant grave spaces was not provided at the time of the application is that the Incumbent and PCC intended to request closure of the graveyard when the eight spaces in the last row were filled. The burden of maintaining the graveyard is significant for a relatively small parish and the remaining unused area of the graveyard had become overgrown in parts [11]”.

In light of the revised evidence, the Deputy Chancellor granted the faculty, waived any contribution to the churchyard maintenance fund, and issued an unreserved apology on behalf of the Church for the delay, misinformation, and distress caused. Noting the very great distress suffered by the Petitioner(s) in the process of making the Petition, the Deputy Chancellor concluded:

“[16]. …The unexplained delay in progressing the Petition, the impression given that the parish had the power to grant the Petition, and had, indeed, granted it, and the provisional Consistory Court decision, based on erroneous information, have all combined to contribute to that distress and for that the Church must, and does, offer an unreserved and sincere apology. “

Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon (Number 2) [2026] ECC B&W 2

The Consistory Court reconsidered its earlier faculty decision in Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon [2025] ECC B&W 1, after discovering that through an administrative error, the court was not aware that Historic England had wished to be a party opponent.

To remedy the procedural unfairness, the Court joined Historic England, considered its expert evidence on the significance of the Victorian chancel stalls, and revisited the merits. Historic England demonstrated that the children’s choir stalls were an exceptionally rare, possibly unique, survival of Victorian church furnishing and that their removal would cause moderate harm to the significance of the Grade I listed church.

However, the Court concluded that the stalls were functionally redundant and that the parish’s need to create a smaller, more practical, energy-efficient worship space close to the altar outweighed that harm. It rejected Historic England’s proposed compromise as insufficient to meet the church’s present needs. Accordingly, the application to vary the existing faculty was dismissed, leaving the original faculty in force, including the condition preventing disposal of the removed stalls without further court approval.

Comment

The “Wrecclesham cases” raise an important question in relation to the closure of a churchyard: “To what extent is this within the gift of the incumbent/PCC?” Parishioners and those on the Electoral Roll have a legal right to be buried in a churchyard provided it has not been closed by an Order in Council under the Burial Act 1853 or 1855. The Ministry of Justice has issued Guidance Notes which explain the criteria for closure, including an application form to be completed by the PCC, (Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956). The grounds for making an Order in Council are that:

(a) further burials would constitute a public health risk;
(b) further burials would be contrary to decency;
(c) burials should be discontinued for the prevention or mitigation of nuisance;
(d) there is no proper room for new graves; or
(e) [other] valid grounds as justified by the PCC.

Grounds (a) to (d) have been agreed by the Ministry of Justice, Church of England and local government representative organisations as potential grounds for justifying closure.

If (a), any Order to discontinue burials in a churchyard on the grounds that it is full will be made subject to exceptions allowing further burials in existing reserved grave spaces, vaults, walled graves or earthen graves provided they have sufficient room.

If any of (b) – (e),  a covering letter requires providing further information as to why burials should be discontinued.

In Barsuk and Gyl v Ukraine [2026] ECHR 145, the applicants, two female Jehovah’s Witnesses, had been attacked and beaten up by one S when they were preaching door-to-door and distributing religious literature in 2017 [1-8]. S was subsequently arrested and charged with “infliction of minor injuries which caused short-term damage to health” and “infliction of injuries of medium severity” under the Criminal Code [10].

The domestic proceedings

S admitted at his trial that he had pushed and grabbed them. He was an Orthodox Christian and regarded the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrines as false and dangerous, but he had not acted out of religious hatred but because he had previously seen a television news programme about fraudsters visiting people’s houses [16]. However, several Jehovah’s Witnesses, examined at the request of Ms Barsuk and Ms Gyl, testified that on other occasions S had been rude to them when they had been speaking to people in his neighbourhood, telling them that they belonged to a sect and were spreading propaganda, and that on some occasions he had pushed them [17]. He was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and the court awarded Ms Barsuk and Ms Gyl compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage [18].

Both the prosecution and S appealed: the prosecution arguing that the sentence was too lenient, and S claiming that he had attempted “from a subjective point of view, to prevent a crime and detain the applicants whom he had sincerely believed to be fraudsters” [21]. Ms Barsuk and Ms Gyl lodged objections to the appeals, requesting that no retrial be ordered and that a decision be made to hold S criminally liable on the basis of “religious enmity” in respect of the offence [22].

In 2017, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and remitted the case for retrial [23].  The retrial began but kept being reassigned to new retrial judges, until in March 2021, at S’s request, the court discontinued the proceedings as time-barred – a decision which the prosecutor did not oppose [24 & 25]. The applicants appealed the discontinuation, but the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld it [26 & 27].

Complaints and judgment

Before the Fifth Section, the applicants complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the assault on them, in particular by failing to uncover the motive of religious prejudice behind it, in breach of Articles 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment), 9 (religion or belief) and 13 ECHR (effective remedy) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (discrimination) [35]. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by, for example, failing to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Court of Appeal on the time-bar [37]. As to the alleged breach of Article 9, the acts complained of were carried out by a private individual and were not directly attributable to the Government [66].

The Court noted that it was not disputed that when they were attacked, the applicants had been disseminating the doctrines and literature of the Jehovah’s Witnesses [68], so the domestic authorities were confronted with prima facie indications of violent acts motivated by the applicants’ exercise of their religion [69]. The State’s positive obligations under Article 9 of the Convention were, therefore, engaged, and the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ complaint that they had been attacked while exercising their religion [71]. The respondent State had failed to comply with its positive obligations and there had been a violation of Article 9 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention [72 & 73].

Judgments after 1 July 2022

Judgments prior to 1 July 2022

 Comment

The recent post Church of England: Revised “Net Zero ” Routemap (10 July 2026) gives an indication of the approach of the Diocesan Advisory Committees (to 2025) to the the replacement of “oil boilers”.

However, “oil boilers” is not a metric which has a direct equivalent in the Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022, which refer to  fitting “boilers which do not use fossil fuels” and “boiler replacement using same fuel supply”. Oil-fired heating systems are only referred to in relation to the the work being undertaken “by a person whose work is subject to an accredited certification scheme (as defined in rule 3.1(6))”. Furthermore, it is the diocesan consistory court which determines the conditions under which boiler replacement may be undertaken.

Updated: 12 July 2026, 04 :52.

… so apologies to Jonathan David Harvey or whatever he’s called…

Clergy Conduct Measure 2026

On Wednesday, the Clergy Conduct Measure 2026 received Royal Assent. It will be brought into force by Order.

Prime Ministerial religious affiliation

On Tuesday, in a written question, Lord Birt (CB) asked HMG “what plans they have to legislate to ensure a Prime Minister of any religious faith can discharge all of his or her responsibilities” – to which the short answer is evidently, “none”. Bs Anderson of Stoke on Trent replied:

“While religious faith does not prevent anyone from becoming Prime Minister, the Government recognises that there are some historical restrictions on duties in statute. In such cases the Government would make alternative arrangements, so that it can discharge its responsibilities in full.”

Assisted dying in Jersey

On Thursday, it was announced that Jersey’s Assisted Dying Bill had been given Royal Assent. The Assisted Dying (Jersey) Law 2026 will come into force when it is registered at Jersey’s Royal Court, although it will not come into effect until next year.

Church “Treasure”

It was reported by Kaya Burgess in The Times that “a stash of gold coins, now valued at £30,000”, was found by accident in the 14th-century church of St Wilfrid in the village of Melling in Lancashire. A parishioner, cleaning the church for its last Easter services, found a bag behind the wedding kneeler under the altar, with a note dated 2022 saying: “Hi there, I’d like to donate these nine gold Britannias to Melling church”, and signed “James, servant of the living God”.

A number of other churches and a school in the area have also reported finding gold coins, but the identity of the donor is unknown. The money will not pay in total for the repairs estimated at £750,000, but the injection of cash has also brought hope and the local community has started a heritage fund to try to save the church.

Dr Bernard Randall

In March 2023, we reported on the Employment Tribunal case, Mr B Randall v Trent College Ltd & Ors [2023] UKET 2600288/2020. The Revd Dr Bernard Randall, an Anglican priest, was employed as Trent College’s Chaplain. In May 2019, he delivered two sermons to the pupils about “competing ideologies” on identity politics and transgenderism, the content of which led to his summary dismissal in August 2019. He was reinstated on appeal but made redundant in November 2020 and subsequently lost his licence. His claim in the Employment Tribunal  was unsuccessful.

On Thursday, however, The Times reported that he has been reinstated. After an independent review, the Diocese of London has concluded that it could not be established on the balance of probabilities that Randall’s sermon caused harm. The investigator for the diocese recommended that “the concern or allegation” over Dr Randall “was unsubstantiated and there are no ongoing safeguarding concerns”.

Questions at the July 2026 Group of Sessions of the General Synod

The 239 Questions (and answers) for this weekend’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod were issued on 9 July 2026. Of these, the following may be of interest to readers.

Q3: Clergy Discipline Commission

Following the Makin Review, the questions were asked on: (a) how many clergy have been subject to applications for disciplinary proceedings under the CDM; and (b) against how many clergy are disciplinary procedures still outstanding?

Replying on behalf of the Chair of the Clergy Discipline Commission, Canon Dr Jamie Harrison said:

“Following the publication of the Makin Review, the Director of the National Safeguarding Team sought from the President of Tribunals permission under section 9 CDM 2003 to bring proceedings out of time against 10 individuals.

Out of the 10 applications, 7 were granted permission. Following this, 7 complaints under the CDM were brought, with 1 case being subject to a decision to take no further action by the bishop under section 13 CDM 2003, and 2 other cases having a finding of no case to answer following an investigation under section 17 CDM 2003.

The remaining 4 individuals are awaiting trials, which will be later this month”.

Q65: Quantifying emissions 

In response to another question, (Q65), the Church Commissioners were asked “What estimates have been made of the net effect on global temperatures if the Church of England achieves its Net Zero target?“, to which Sir Robert Buckland replied as Chair of the Net Zero Programme Board:

“Taking the Church of England’s efforts to decarbonise its buildings in isolation, the contribution to halting increases in global temperatures is impossible to measure. The same can be said for virtually every organisation, every home, every individual, and place around the planet but that is to miss the point. When the collective action, including that of the Church, is aggregated then our actions together will make a difference that can be measured. And not just in temperature terms but to the lives of our brothers and sisters, and the whole of creation, around the world”.

A more quantified analysis is here, in which we observed that the total emissions of the Church of England constitute less than 0.05% of those of the United Kingdom, which themselves are one hundred times smaller in global terms. Furthermore, in 2024, places of worship – churches, church halls and cathedrals – accounted under 32.5% of the Church’s total GHG emissions.

Q72:  Current policy on AI for the C of E’s National Church Institutions

In response to a Question on the use of AI within the Church of England (Q72), Mr Carl Hughes to reply on behalf of the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:

“There is an NCI-wide AI policy which covers all employees and trustees working on company devices or personal devices used for work purposes. The policy allows the use of Microsoft 365 Copilot in a way which ensures compliant, secure and ethical use of GenAI technology and is under constant review as the technology develops.

As NCI employees the Communications team are covered by this policy. However, while the team regularly reviews how AI can be used to increase productivity, they ensure the graphics, images, videos and text are created by the team of communications professionals with relevant expertise. No prayers or worship materials are created by AI.

Additionally, AI guidance for churches is being worked on as part of Digital Labs training to equip church leaders. This is in response to the growing number of questions from church leaders and volunteers wanting support and guidance as they consider whether to use AI tools to help with their communications”.

Measures approved at Synod

The Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, and Draft Ecclesiastical Property (Exceptions from Requirement for Consent to Dealings) Order 2026 were deemed approved. The associated Explanatory Notes and Policy Note are here, here, and here.

In addition, the Church has issued Synod Roundup: Saturday 11 July 2026.

And finally…

Nothing whatsoever to do with “religion” (though in some extreme cases association football does seem to excite a similar level of uncritical, undying devotion), but since the World Cup is reaching its climax, read on. The ECtHR recently had to consider a case involving football and freedom of speech. In De Carvalho Marques & Ors v Portugal [2026] ECHR 139, the Fourth Section held that a fine levied on Porto FC by the Portuguese Football Federation for comments in its club newsletter accusing a video assistant referee, one BP, of bias was a breach of Article 10 on freedom of speech. The Fourth Section said that the remarks were comments on BP’s professional conduct rather than on his private life and were “common in the context of football competitions”.

Quite so, Mr Trump. [With thanks to Scottish Legal News.]

Methodist Church

Unsurprisingly, there are a number of similarities between the Methodist church report on its work and aspiration to become net zero by 2030, summarized here, and the Church of England report Routemap to Net Zero revised (GS 2418). The Methodist report states that progress has been made but parts of the Church have struggled to develop a robust strategy to meet the target.

“While progress has been made which wouldn’t have happened without this target, it is important for us to recognise and acknowledge with lament that we will not be a net zero Church by 2030. The target was an aspirational one precisely because we knew the scale of the challenge in achieving it, and it is one which the Church has not had the capacity to achieve. To retain a target we know we are unable to achieve would undermine our credibility on this incredibly important issue and would open us to accusations of ‘greenwashing’”.

The report recommends a move from the 2030 target while also noting all the progress that has been made.

Church of England

Echoing some of these issues, the Church’s report GS 2418 states:

“Progress in some areas has been harder to achieve however; developing the approach for decarbonising Theological Education Institutions and other buildings for example. And progress against some Routemap Milestones is behind schedule (e.g. developing the approach for carbon offsetting and deciding on whether Church landholdings should come into scope or not).  The programme’s capacity is not infinite and lack of progress in these areas is reflective of the scale of the ambition set out in the Routemap and work needing to be prioritised”.

The Programme Team worked with consultants Arup to estimate the likely emissions reductions achievable by 2030; they forecast that by the scheduled end to the Net Zero Carbon Programme in 2024, an emissions reduction of approximately 50% was possible, and further. “If effort is embedded into day-to-day operations and continues beyond 2034 through to 2050  (and the UK Government’s own Climate Change target), getting within the 90% reduction threshold set by the Routemap to Net Zero is possible”.

Pages 18 to 25 of the Report present the progress on milestones for dioceses in the Routemap to Net Zero Carbon 2030[1]. The forecast reduction by 2030 is around 29% from the 2023 level (when the Programme formally commenced); this is the result of a combination of internal action (~50% of the forecast reduction) and reductions secured through external factors (e.g. the decarbonisation of the grid – the remaining ~50%).

“Net zero” and the faculty jurisdiction

The two National Milestones, 2.1 – Agree faculty rule changes for some net zero carbon measures,  and 2.2 – Promote Practical Path to Net Zero for churches are marked as completed, and with regard to the former, the new provisions Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022 came into force on 1 July 2022. These rules introduced:

• Requirement to have due regard to net zero guidance, (rule 2);
• Consultation before starting faculty proceedings, (rule 3);
• Changes to Lists A and B, (rule 4, and changes to the Schedule).

and an Explanatory Note [2]. The judgment Re St. Saviour Croydon [2022] ECC Swk 5, handed down on 21 November 2022, was the first to be considered under the revised legislation; links to this an subsequently reported cases are here. The Report summarizes the response from the dioceses, and is summarized in the following table.

Target Date: 2025; Percentage of dioceses

Comment

This post focusses on the “net zero” provisions within the Church of England and the extent to which these are subject to the faculty jurisdiction. It should be emphasized that in 2024, churches contributed 32.5% of the total church carbon footprint.

At 42.6%, schools were the largest contributor, followed by clergy housing at 14.1%, and cathedrals 2.9%[3]. It is notable that for clergy housing, 21% of dioceses are still replacing gas/oil boilers with like for like as standard practice (4.4.5 Milestone), and for schools, 19% have not Identified schools with end of life boilers, work with school to apply for grant funding for feasibility studies and are not planning to in 2025 (4.3.3 Milestone).

Although an approximate indication of the approach of the Diocesan Advisory Committees (to 2025) to the the replacement of “oil boilers” is given, this metric which has no direct equivalent in the Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022 which refer to  fitting “boilers which do not use fossil fuels” and “boiler replacement using same fuel supply”.  Oil-fired heating systems are only referred to in relation to the the work being undertaken “by a person whose work is subject to an accredited certification scheme (as defined in rule 3.1(6))”.

[1] Milestones to Net Zero Carbon 2030

For Dioceses

• 4.1.1 Milestone for Diocese: Convene NZC working group
• 4.1.2 Milestone for Diocese: Provide annual carbon emissions report to Diocesan Synod
• 4.1.4 Milestone for Diocese: Provide outline of decarbonisation plan to Diocesan Synod as a NZAP.
• 4.1 (Consideration 8) Consideration for Diocese: Engage with local authorities regarding potential heat networks.
• 4.2 (Consideration 5) Consideration for Diocese: Identify top 20% churches and plan to support them.]

For Churches and Cathedrals

• 4.2.12 Milestone for Churches and cathedrals: No new oil boilers

For schools

• 4.3.3 Milestone for DBE: Identify schools with end of life boilers, work with school to apply for grant funding for feasibility studies

For housing

• 4.4.2 Milestone for Housing Managers: Retrofitting and maintenance plans in place
• 4.4.5 Milestone for Diocese: Stock improvement plan to decarbonise heat in place that refers to ‘Advice Note: Moving Houses to Net Zero’

For offices

• 4.6.1 Milestone for Office managers: Offices working towards Eco Church Bronze and Silver
• 4.6 (Consideration 2) Consideration for Office managers: Adopt flexible working policy
• 4.6.3 Milestone for Office managers: All offices have a high level NZAP
• 4.6.4 Milestone for Office managers: Review options for EV charging at offices

For land

• 6.2.2 Milestone for Diocese: Review tenancy agreements to include NZC and
  biodiversity
• 4.1.6 Milestone for Diocese: All dioceses audit their landholdings and develop a land management plan.

For work-related travel

• 5.3 (Consideration 2) Consideration for Diocese: Update expenses policies to encourage sustainable transport
• 5.3.3 Milestone for All: Have a Travel Plan that includes ‘no travel’ options

For Comms

• 4.1.3 Milestone for Diocese: Develop a communication strategy to churches and schools
• 5.1 (Consideration 4) Consideration for Diocese: Integrate NZC questions in the Archdeacons Articles of Inquiry.

[2] Explanatory Note

These Rules amend the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (S.I. 2015/1568) (“the 2015 Rules”).

Rule 2 provides that persons proposing to undertake certain works must, as part of the procedure, provide an explanation of how they have had due regard to guidance issued by the Church Buildings Council on reducing carbon emissions.

Rule 3 makes minor amendments to the procedure for consultation before faculty proceedings can begin, including by imposing a requirement that, where the online faculty system is used for the consultation, responses to the consultation should also use the online system.

Rule 4 introduces the Schedule, which makes amendments to Lists A and B in Schedule 1 to the 2015 Rules. In particular, the amendments in Part 2 of the Schedule are concerned with promoting environmental protection (for example, fitting boilers which do not use fossil fuels and installing charging points for electric vehicles).

Rule 5 makes some minor drafting improvements and corrections to the 2015 Rules, and Rule 6 makes transitional provisions.

The Explanatory Note is not part of the Rules.

[3] See Carbon Footprint Reports, (12 June 2026), and The Church of England, Carbon Emissions Report 2024.

Lord Mackay was a devout member and elder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which has traditionally banned its members from attending Roman Catholic services. In the mid-1980s, however, he attended requiem masses for two of his judicial colleagues, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Wheatley, and he was summoned to a meeting of synod to explain himself. He denied that he had broken the Church’s prohibition, explaining that he had attended purely to pay his respects to his dead colleagues; however, the synod suspended him from the eldership and barred him from communion for six months. In 1989 it met again to review the decision, but he refused to give any undertaking not to do the same in future should the occasion arise, and he later withdrew from the Church.

The result was a split in the Free Presbyterian Church that led to the establishment of the Associated Presbyterian Churches by those who felt that the FPC did not give sufficient weight to freedom of conscience as set out in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any way contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship”. 

Lord Mackay will be remembered as a great reforming Lord Chancellor, inter alia introducing the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which ended the Bar’s monopoly on audience in the higher courts, “no win, no fee” litigation, and the reforms that ended fault-based divorce.

There are obituaries in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times and  Scottish Legal News,

On 29 June 2026, The Methodist Conference received an update on the Church’s Action for Hope work and aspiration to become net zero by 2030. Representatives heard that progress had been made across the Connexion, but parts of the Church have struggled to develop a robust strategy to meet the target. The report concluded that it would be better to move from the 2030 target while also noting all the progress that has been made.

In an associated report, the Connexional Council advised that retaining the 2030 target would risk undermining credibility and invite accusations of ‘greenwashing’ and therefore recommended its withdrawal. Instead, the Conference was asked to adopt a more flexible, ongoing approach to carbon reduction that prioritises sustained progress over a fixed deadline.

This includes developing tools to support voluntary carbon footprint measurement, encouraging engagement at every level of the Church and focusing on practical actions such as property reviews, reducing travel emissions and increasing participation in schemes like Eco Church. The Conference heard that while this represents a step back from a time-bound ambition, it reflects a more honest and sustainable pathway – one that maintains both inspiration and a sense of urgency while focusing on long-term carbon reduction.

The report to the Conference reads:

“While the reality of the scale of decarbonising the Church has meant that the aspirational target of net zero by 2030 will not be reached, this must be viewed as one stage of the journey and not the end of it. The scale of the challenge ahead, alongside the worsening situation and unjust impacts of the climate crisis on God’s creation, requires us to increase our efforts rather than lose focus or momentum.

“As we consider the work of Action for Hope to this point it is important to hold both the lament that the Church will not reach its aspirational target and the celebration of progress which has been made as a result of setting the goal. Both the lament and celebration must be used as motivation to further effort.”

Dr Hamish Leese, Director of Environmental Engagement at the Methodist Church, said:

“In 2021 the Methodist Conference agreed and affirmed that the global climate emergency is a crisis for God’s creation and a fundamental injustice. It is, therefore, not only a practical issue but a deeply spiritual one, which is inextricably linked to discipleship and God’s mission which we are called to join. At the same Conference, an aspirational target was agreed for the Church to aim to become net zero by 2030.

“In the years since 2021 a great deal of work has been undertaken by churches, circuits and districts all across the Connexion, and I want to say a big congratulations to all those who have made progress. We have seen churches all over the country making environmental concerns part of their worship and teaching life and reduce the amount of energy they are using, as well as sourcing it from renewable sources. Many churches have added solar panels or heat pumps, and many more have taken the first steps that will enable them to travel further on their sustainability journey. Over 1,300 Methodist churches in Great Britain are now registered with Eco Church, and this number is growing all the time.

“While progress has been made which wouldn’t have happened without this target, it is important for us to recognise and acknowledge with lament that we will not be a net zero Church by 2030. The target was an aspirational one precisely because we knew the scale of the challenge in achieving it, and it is one which the Church has not had the capacity to achieve. To retain a target we know we are unable to achieve would undermine our credibility on this incredibly important issue and would open us to accusations of ‘greenwashing’.

“Although the Church is moving away from the time-bound target, this is in no way an indication that these issues are any less important to the Church. Climate change is inherently and inescapably an issue of mission, discipleship  and justice. Indeed, this proposed change is a recognition that an issue of this importance requires a realistic and practical approach which moves beyond an aspirational target which is out of reach.

“As we move into a new phase of our journey towards net zero it is critical that we maintain momentum, inspiration and a sense of urgency, where all Methodists and Methodist churches are called to act as swiftly as possible to reduce our emissions and, in doing so, promote climate justice and enable the flourishing of God’s creation.”

Church of England

On 12 July 2026, there will be a presentation by to the Church of England General Synod of the report Routemap to Net Zero revised (GS 2418) by Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC (ex officio) (Third Church Estates Commissioner); he will move “That the Synod do take note of this Report.” This item updates Synod on work undertaken on moving to Net Zero by 2030 since the debate in July 2022. The Church Times reports (£) “Church of England goal to reach net zero by 2030 will not be met, new progress report forecasts“

A further post will analyse this report, which includes analyses on the replacement of  heating boilers installed in churches and cathedrals.

• Clergy Conduct Rules – for approval
• Abuse Redress Rules – for approval
• National Church Governance Measure – report from the Legislative Committee
• House Of Clergy Election (Amendment) Rules 2025– for approval
• House Of Laity Election (Amendment) Rules 2025– for approval
• Vacancy In See Committees (Amendment) Regulation – for approval
• Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2026 – for deemed approval
• Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2026 – for
  deemed approval
• Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) (Amendment) Regulations
  2026 – for deemed approval
• Draft Ecclesiastical Property (Exceptions from Requirement For Consent
  To Dealings) Order 2026 – for deemed approval

Links to the relevant documents are included in an earlier post. 

In Bains v Arsalan & Anor (Funeral Arrangements) [2026] EWHC 1597 (Fam), Harleen, a Sikh baby of unmarried Sikh parents, died in 2020 aged 2 months after suffering fatal injuries at home. In August 2022, her father committed suicide [1-4] after being falsely accused of Harleen’s murder by her mother, and in November 2022, Harleen’s mother was charged with her murder and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years. She converted to Islam and changed her name from Sharandeep Kaur Talwandi to Zara Arsalan. For six years, Harleen’s body remained in a mortuary under the responsibility of the Coroner’s Office [5-8].

In May 2026, the Coroner’s Office contacted a charitable bereavement service, Iqbal and Sons (the second respondent), with formal written instructions from Ms Arsalan to give Harleen an Islamic burial, followed by a Burial Order authorising release of the body. The burial application form referred incorrectly to Harleen’s religion as Islam “in circumstances where she had been born into the Sikh faith and remained so at her death” [9&10], and her paternal grandparents sought an injunction to halt the burial, contending that she should have a Sikh funeral [13].

It was argued on their behalf that, under the Forfeiture Act 1982, Harleen’s mother had no locus to apply for a grant of administration and, therefore, no right to determine burial arrangements, and that Harleen’s paternal grandmother should be granted letters of administration to carry out the funeral arrangements instead [18].

Peel J pointed out that it was long established that “the law recognises no property in a corpse”. Harleen had died intestate; Rule 22 of the Non Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR) listed the order of priority of those entitled to a grant of letters of administration for someone who died intestate and “(c) the father and mother of the deceased” came before “(f) grandparents” in that list [27]. The starting point was therefore that Harleen’s mother was entitled to a grant of administration to enable her to authorise arrangements for the body [28]. However, under s.116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the order of priority in the NCPR could be displaced if special circumstances made it necessary or expedient to do so [29], and he was satisfied that

“…by reason of the Forfeiture Act, and accepting as I do the submissions of counsel for the paternal grandmother, Harleen’s mother is not entitled to benefit from the estate of Harleen and, accordingly, is not entitled to apply for, or receive, a grant of administration under Rule 22 of the NCPR” [38].

Harleen’s mother was her closest biological relative, and he had “no reason to doubt her acceptance of Islamic faith and her wish for Harleen to be buried in accordance with Islamic tradition” [40]; however, it was Harleen’s mother who had murdered her, Harleen had been a Sikh, it was the wish of the paternal family and of her father when he was alive that she should be buried in accordance with the Sikh tradition, and none of the wider maternal family had expressed any desire to be involved, having disassociated themselves from Harleen’s mother [41].

And if he was wrong about that, he was satisfied that, under Rule 22 of the NCPR and the Forfeiture Act 1982, the fact that Harleen’s mother had killed Harleen “in horrific circumstances” and the fact that it was expedient to grant letters of administration to the paternal grandmother “to enable her to make the funeral arrangements in accordance with the Sikh faith, culture and tradition” were, taken together, special circumstances that weighed in favour of varying the order of priority [42].

* Guest posts.

Comment

The following observations may be made on the above posts which are listed in descending order of number of page-views:

• Our very first post in 2012 addressed the successful challenge of the National Secular Society, (NSS), and the late Mr Clive Bone, a former Bideford town councillor, to the inclusion of ‘Prayers’ as the first substantive item of business at full meetings of the Council. The opinions of Local Authorities to “Council Prayers” have changed since events at Bideford, and last year the NSS observed that Reform councillors imposed prayers on Derbyshire County Council after the party had taken control of the Council.
• Posts on Parochial fees often feature in these listings, and their publication by the Church of England each December results reflects searches for previous fees as well as newly announced ones, hence the interest in the post with information on 2025 and 2026 fees.
• The two posts on CDM proceedings concerned considerations of before the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Derby, in which it “found the Respondent’s behaviour (of non-participation) to be puzzling and in the face of many opportunities to act otherwise, to have been disappointing in one tasked with important duties in her role“.
• Further to the update on the Thomas Corker Memorial, this was considered by Truro Diocesan Synod on 9 June, here, and reported by local media.
• As in the Q1 analysis, Guest posts featured in the “top ten”; possibly an encouragement to others to submit articles?

[1]  i.e. those other than “Archives” and “Index”. However, for the present analysis, these categories did not fall within the “top 10”.

[2] For comparison, there were 20% for January to April in 2025 and ~12% for posts from 1 August 2024 to 4 July 2025.

Updated: 29 June 2026 at 08:46.

The Daily Telegraph has now reported that the urn was not filled with human ashes  and that it was taken to the races last year as part of an elaborate joke, (£) The burger van, the fake ashes and the burial no one could stop (1 July 2026). The background to Gary Bon­sor – the name on the cremation urn – relevant to L&RUK is that he died in his sleep in 2021 aged 58, and a few family members who wanted to mark his death arranged “the cheapest package, an early morning cremation” a few weeks after his death.

His ashes were not then trans­ferred to an urn, but “scattered in a lake at a park Bonsor had enjoyed walking in. The “ashes” that were found in the urn at New­bury Race­course are not human at all, but “wood fire ashes and a few mini­ature whiskey bottles as that was his tipple”. As to the future, the Telegraph article states:

“What hap­pens now to the ashes – and the whis­key bottles, if they too have been ‘reverently laid to rest’ – is unclear. The Rev Minter, when The Telegraph approached her, was not keen to divulge. ‘I’m trying hard to man­age the natural curiosity around the situ­ation with the very real demands of parish ministry,’ she said.

A spokes­man for the Diocese of Oxford says that the ashes were presented to the church as genuine human remains and were therefore treated as such. If they are found to be fake, will they be dug up again, or left to feed the grass? “’There are processes for all these things,” the spokes­man says mysteriously. ‘We’ll just have to wait and see’.”

Observations

Whilst L&RUK does not comment on on-going issues, it is pertinent to note:

• The minutes of a meeting of the Parochial Church Council on 14 October 2025 correctly noted “We cannot legally bury without the right paperwork, which we do not have”.[1]
• Paperwork on the cremation may now be accessed from crematorium now it is said to be known when and where the “early morning” cremation took place.
• Since the urn, now buried, does not contain human remains, Re Blagdon Cemetery does not apply, and its contents seem to be unlikely sources of groundwater pollution.
• On the basis of the information available to the Court at the time, a faculty was granted for the interment of the urn containing the ashes to take place within 28 days from the grant of the faculty [7].
• A record on the churchyard plan of the place and circumstances of the burial were to be made as a condition of the faculty which was handed down on 21 June 2026 [6].

[1] The Guidebook for The Clergy, General Register Office, (Issued 2012, Last Updated August 2024) lists only one exception to the rule that a registrar’s certificate or coroner’s order must be produced before the burial is allowed to take place, (para.9.5 and Appendix U), neither of  which was applicable in this case.

In the case of The Reverend Henry Curran, the content of a text sent by the Respondent was one of the four example of “unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within Section 8(1)(d) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003” considered by the Tribunal.

A more recent CDM determination, The Revd Samuel Cross (June 2026) considered a different aspect of social media usage by clergy. Extensive material from WhatsApp and Snapchat assisted the court’s analysis of the relationship between the parties.

Decision

The CDM proceedings brought against the Reverend Samuel Cross arose out of a complaint by Person A (“the Complainant”) on 29 November 2024. By a decision dated 18 June 2025 the Deputy President of Tribunals referred the following charge to the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for determination: that the Respondent’s conduct was unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within S8(1)(d) Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 in that:

(a)  Being a married man, he engaged in a sexual relationship with the Complainant Person A from in or about October 2021 until January 2023; (b) After January 2023, he continued to engage in an inappropriate relationship with the said complainant and by his actions failed to maintain any or any proper professional or pastoral boundary, and; (c) Throughout the period of the parties’ relationship, between about October 2021 and January 2024, he behaved towards the said complainant in a manner which was coercive and controlling.

The Respondent had been the vicar of St Thomas, St Andrew and St Philip, Kensal Town, in the Diocese of London since 2017. He married in 2014 and separated from his former wife in October 2021. They were divorced on 20 January 2023.

The Complainant lived as a lodger at the vicarage from August 2021. She was baptised in the parish in December 2021 and confirmed in June 2022. Initially she was a university student but then became employed by the Diocese as an apprentice children’s worker in the parish in September 2022. She left her employment sometime in the spring in 2024[3].

At the time of the alleged misconduct, it was alleged that the Respondent was, variously, the Complainant’s priest, partner, landlord and line manager, with responsibility for supervision at work [5].

The Tribunal had regard to the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (2015) and also Canon C 26 – Of the manner of life of clerks in Holy Orders[7]. Its description of the circumstance [emphasis added] as:

“[8] … a sad case where, in the Tribunal’s view, the relationship between the Complainant (“Person A”) and the Respondent (vicar of St Thomas, St Andrew and St Philip, Kensal Town, Diocese of London) had inappropriate features from the beginning, sometime in the Autumn 2021 until it ended in January 2024. Evidentially this case is unusual in that the whole course of the relationship is tracked across 1000 pages of WhatsApp messages between the couple from the start until the end and further messages between the Complainant and [another priest and his wife][4].

A further complication was that although initially the Complainant paid rent, which apparently went to fund the organist, there came a time, in February 2022, when she stopped paying rent altogether[21].

One of the Complainant’s concerns was that she took on an increasing level of responsibility for the running of the vicarage, including looking after a menagerie of animals that they, particularly, the Respondent had acquired. One of the animals was the Respondent’s dog, Marshall, to whom he was very attached; however it was aggressive, biting the Complainant on more than one occasion necessitating outpatient treatment, and was put down in April 2023 at the insistence of the Complainant, “which may well have been terminal for their relationship”[14].

The Tribunal observed “The evidence from the parties [was] directly contradictory[8]”, although such is the nature of prolonged WhatsApp exchanges, “[o]n several occasions [the Respondent] let his guard down”; on 4 February 2022, he sent the Complainant a message at 01:25 asking if he could he join her to which she replied BYOP, (i.e. bring your own pillow). In addition to the 1000 pages of WhatsApp messages, there were screenshots from Snapchat and photographs for the whole period of the relationship[17].

The Tribunal concluded [19] that the contemporaneous records supported the Complainant’s evidence that there was a sexual relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent…The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s answer in oral evidence that he did not respond to messages of a sexual nature, which he considered were more appropriate to discuss with the Complainant in person and not reply on WhatsApp. It added [21]: “If there was any lingering doubt about the matter, the Snapchat messages and photographs tell the same story”.

The Tribunal considered that the Complainant gave her evidence…with clarity and confidence in a quiet and persuasive manner. It accepts her evidence regarding the nature of the sexual relationship she had with the Respondent in its entirety, however, it did not accept that the relationship was coercive and controlling [22]. However, it rejected the Respondent’s evidence regarding the sexual nature of the relationship and found that he consistently lied in these proceedings both in his witness statements and oral evidence[24].

The fact that the Respondent has lied to this tribunal is consistent with how he deliberately chose to deceive his church about his relationship with the Complainant, keeping it private from the churchwardens, PCC and other members of the clergy[25]. The Tribunal concluded:

“[28]. …mindful that that the burden of proof is on the Designated Officer, who bring this case on behalf of the Complainant, and that the standard of proof is that applied in civil proceedings, namely on the balance of probabilities, the tribunal finds that heads of charge (a) and (b) laid against the Respondent are proved and (c) is dismissed. The Respondent’s counsel accepted that if the tribunal found that the parties had engaged in sexual intercourse before the Respondent’s divorce in January 2023 then that would amount to conduct unbecoming.

Penalty

The Tribunal stated that in its view, the Respondent was highly culpable in permitting the sexual relationship with the Complainant to develop, indeed inappropriate messaging began even before she moved into the Rectory. The relationship was inappropriate from close to the outset. It also noted a number of aggravating factors:

• the Respondent’s sexual relationship with the Complainant was undertaken over a prolonged period of 15 or so months from shortly after she moved into the Rectory until his divorce was finalised in January 2023 [6].
• there was a power imbalance between the Respondent and the Complainant in circumstances where he was aware that she was a vulnerable person with mental health issues, having dropped out of university. The Tribunal considered it was important to take into account that he was a parish priest and she was a student lodger living in his home [7].
• a further aggravating factor was the covert nature of the relationship which continued until it ended in January 2024. The Complainant made clear the harm that she suffered to her psychological state both before and after the relationship ended [8].

The Tribunal considered carefully the submissions of Ms Gyane (Counsel for the Respondent), particularly in relation to the Respondent’s own history of mental health issues. They have taken into account that he was of previous good character, and that the relationship was probably not destructive of the Respondent’s marriage and did not involve anybody else’s marriage, or indeed, have a detrimental impact on children. The character references were supportive of the Respondent being a capable and effective parish priest in a difficult area [9]. It noted:

“The Tribunal was concerned that the Respondent had failed to show any insight or remorse about entering into a sexual relationship with the Complainant whilst he was still married. Such insight as he has shown related to his failure to inform persons in authority in his church that he was in a romantic relationship with the Complainant…. [10]”.

“In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal agreed that the only proportionate penalties open to it were a limited period of prohibition or prohibition for life. It did not consider that any of the other penalties adequately reflected the seriousness of the matters found proved. Ms Gyane accepted that the threshold for prohibition has been passed. [It] considered the view expressed by the Acting Bishop of London that a limited prohibition of three years is an appropriate sanction. Whilst this may have been appropriate where the Respondent had admitted the matters found proved but not where the matters had been denied throughout [11].

The Tribunal expressed its concern whether, in the absence of the Respondent’s insight and remorse, he will be able to resume public ministry in the future. On balance, it considered that there is such a possibility but only after appropriate pastoral, training and other necessary support, and after a long period of reflection over his past behaviour[12]. It concluded:

“[13]….the appropriate penalty that it should impose is a prohibition for a period of five years from the date of this decision. It also directed that the Respondent should be removed from office as the incumbent of St Thomas, St Andrew and St Philip,  Kensal Town, in the Diocese of London”.

Notes

[1] As from 13 June 2024, the “Like” capability on X/Twitter ceased to be accessible to others apart from the person “Liking” a particular Tweet.

[2] “He did not attend the hearing. An order was made in accordance with Rule 42 of the Clergy Discipline Rules that the tribunal should proceed in his absence, the Chair being satisfied that the Respondent had been properly made aware of the hearing and did not attend through choice[2]”. See also Non-involvement with CDM proceedings (II).

[3] Some of the more explicit details of the relationship between the Respondent and the Claimant have been omitted.

[4] The “1000 pages of WhatsApp messages” refer to the export chat history from a chat on which the WhatsApp platform provides guidance on how this may be delivered from Android and Apple (iOS) devices.

Summaries to the ten consistory court judgments reviewed during June are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included [*]:

• Procedural
• Churchyards and burials

This monthly review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law. An index to these and earlier judgments in here.

Procedural

See Re Calderstones Cemetery [2026] ECC Bla 1.

Exhumation

Family graves

Re St. Nicholas Rotherfield Greys [2026] ECC Oxf 8  By a faculty petition, dated 22 April 2026, Mrs Sarah Hemming, as the daughter and lawful personal representative of the deceased, applies for the grant of a faculty authorising the disinterment of the cremated remains of her late father, Mr Richard Hodgkin, and their re-interment in the grave of his wife (and the petitioner’s mother), Mrs Elizabeth Hodgkin, within the churchyard of St Nicholas, Rotherfield Greys [2]. The petition states that Mr Hodgkin died on 30 June 2024 and his body was cremated. His cremated remains were interred in the churchyard of the parish church of St Nicholas, Rotherfield Greys, Oxfordshire, on 20 July 2024. At the time the father’s cremated remains were interred, it was the shared and settled intention of the deceased and his wife, Mrs Elizabeth Hodgkin, that their mortal remains should ultimately be laid to rest together [3]. Mrs Hodgkin was buried in October 2025 in the churchyard of St Nicholas, Rotherfield Greys. As matters now stand, the deceased and his wife are not laid to rest together. This is not as a result of any change of mind, dissatisfaction with the original interment, or matters of convenience, but rather because of a material change in circumstances arising after Mr Hodgkin’s own interment.

The purpose of the proposed exhumation is solely to permit the re-interment of the deceased’s cremated remains within the grave of his late wife, thereby completing an existing family grave in which one spouse is already buried. The proposed re-interment will take place within the same consecrated churchyard, and is intended to be final and permanent [5].

Hodges Ch. stated:

“[12]. On any application for a faculty authorising the exhumation of human or cremated remains – and no distinction is to be made between them – essentially three matters fall for consideration:
(1) The ‘threshold’ condition of whether the court has the necessary jurisdiction to order their exhumation.
(2) Whether the court should exercise its discretion to make such an order.
(3) The conditions subject to which any exhumation should be ordered.

and commented:

“[15] …in my judgment, the consistory court should reject the temptation to attempt to shoehorn any particular exhumation application into one of the existing categories of case in which exhumation has previously been permitted. In Blagdon the Court of Arches was simply seeking to identify various factors which can arise in connection with a faculty petition for exhumation. It was not seeking to provide any comprehensive, or exhaustive, list of the categories of case in which exhumation may be permissible”.

Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor reaffirmed the strong presumption that Christian burial is permanent and that exhumation requires exceptional circumstances, but found such circumstances existed because:

(i) the couple’s settled joint intention to be buried together had been frustrated by Elizabeth’s later unilateral decision;

(ii) all close relatives supported the petition;

(iii) the parish rector supported it;

(iv) the remains would stay within the same churchyard and (v) the case involved no issue of convenience or “portable remains.”

The faculty was granted, subject to conditions including prompt exhumation, respectful handling by a funeral director, immediate reinterment in Elizabeth’s grave, and release of the original ashes plot back to the parish. [Re St. Nicholas Rotherfield Greys [2026] ECC Oxf 8] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Re St. Helen’s Cemetery [2026] ECC Liv 3 The daughter of Janet Kelly sought a faculty to exhume her mother’s cremated remains from a consecrated grave and reinter them with those of her recently deceased husband, Stephen Kelly, in a family grave. Janet had died in 2006 aged 42 after cancer. Her ashes were placed with her parents on what the family regarded as a temporary basis, because she and Stephen had always intended to be buried together. No headstone inscription was added, reflecting that expectation[5] to [7].

The Chancellor reviewed the strict legal principles governing exhumation, which require exceptional circumstances, because Christian burial is intended to be permanent. Although a desire to reunite family members is not normally sufficient, the court found this case exceptional.

Particular weight was given to the extraordinary circumstances following Janet’s death: Stephen was left as sole parent to three young children while coping with profound grief and administrative pressures. The court accepted that the temporary interment resulted from those circumstances and from a genuine belief that the couple could later be buried together. The absence of any inscription supported that understanding. Accordingly, despite the 20-year delay, the Chancellor granted a faculty for exhumation and reinterment so that Janet and Stephen could finally be buried together. [Re St. Helen’s Cemetery [2026] ECC Liv 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Churchyards and burials

• Development of churchyard
• Designation of closed churchyard
• Churchyard Regulations
• Reservation of grave space

Development of churchyard

Re Holy Trinity Bracknell [2026] ECC Oxf 9 The Chancellor considered a petition by the churchwardens of the Grade II listed Church to install a small York stone patio with three fixed benches in the churchyard near the vestry entrance. The proposal aimed to create a welcoming space for visitors, encourage community interaction, and support the church’s mission. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended approval. Three parishioners objected, raising concerns about security, potential anti-social behaviour, noise, litter, rats, and possible interference with the memorial garden. None became formal parties opponent, so the petition was treated as unopposed. The petitioners responded that the vestry was routinely secured, litter and rodent issues could be managed, and there was no evidence that the patio would increase crime or nuisance. Applying the Duffield principles, the Chancellor found that the proposal would cause no harm to the church’s architectural or historic significance. He considered the objections manageable and within the parish’s discretion to address. Concluding that the patio would enhance the churchyard and support the church’s mission, he granted the faculty, subject to standard conditions relating to archaeology, planning, insurance, and implementation within six months. [Re Holy Trinity Bracknell [2026] ECC Oxf 9] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Calderstones Cemetery [2026] ECC Bla 1 The Consistory Court considered a preliminary legal issue arising from a faculty petition by Remembrance Parks Construction Ltd. The company sought permission for works on consecrated land within a former cemetery, including chapel and lychgate restoration, road improvements, parking, landscaping, and utilities, all ancillary to a proposed crematorium on adjoining land that had already been deconsecrated.

This judgment is a sequel to, and should be read in conjunction with, the case management judgment handed down in this matter on 22 October 2025 which bears the neutral citation number: Re Calderstones Cemetery [2025] ECC Bla 3. [2].

The Friends of Calderstones and Brockhall Cemeteries opposed the petition. The central question was whether consecrated land can lawfully be used for purposes ancillary to a secular crematorium without first being deconsecrated. The objectors argued that consecration permanently dedicates land to sacred purposes and that secular use is therefore impermissible.

The petitioner contended that modern authorities show increasing flexibility in permitting secular uses of consecrated land where appropriate. Reviewing extensive ecclesiastical case law, the Chancellor rejected the argument that consecrated land may never be used for secular purposes. He held that the law has developed beyond rigid historical categories and that there is no absolute prohibition on ancillary secular uses. Accordingly, the preliminary issue was determined in the petitioner’s favour, allowing the faculty application to proceed to consideration on its merits rather than being barred in principle. [Re Calderstones Cemetery [2026] ECC Bla 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Designation of closed churchyard

See Privy Council Business.

Churchyard Regulations

Re St. Peter Woolhampton [2026] ECC Oxf 7 By an application dated 25 July 2025, Mr Albert Mark Brazil applied for a faculty authorising the introduction of an upright memorial into the churchyard of St Peter, Woolhampton notwithstanding that it fells outside the current churchyard regulations. The proposal is to lay Mrs Brazil’s ashes to rest, and to install the headstone, under the expansive canopy of a yew tree, near to the north-western boundary of the churchyard.

The headstone will contain the image of an open book, with a rose design running across the top. The memorial will be made of standard dark grey/charcoal granite, with a polished front and fascia (although the applicant would have preferred the headstone to be black in colour). Its dimensions will be 30 by 12 by 3 inches. The lettering for the inscription will be in a gold fill colour. Spanning both pages of the open book, the inscription will read (with line breaks indicated by the symbol / and the page division by the symbol //)[1].

The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Parochial Church Council objected, arguing that the memorial departed significantly from the Diocese of Oxford’s Churchyard Regulations and would not preserve the churchyard’s visual coherence and dignity [3] an [5] respectively. The Chancellor accepted that Mr Brazil’s proposal reflected his wife’s wishes and the family’s grief, but emphasised that churchyards are consecrated communal spaces whose appearance must be considered for future generations. Applying the merits-based approach endorsed in Re St Giles Exhall, the Chancellor held that non-compliance with regulations is not automatically fatal, but found this memorial undesirable.

The proposed location was in one of the few areas reserved for future burials; the polished black stone, gold lettering, and elaborate design conflicted with the churchyard’s character; and the inscription was excessively long, sentimental, and insufficiently reverent. A faculty was therefore refused. Re St. Peter Woolhampton [2026] ECC Oxf 7] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re All Saints Broughton [2026] ECC Lee 1 Funeral director Susan Smith petitioned for a confirmatory faculty concerning a headstone unlawfully installed in December 2025 at All Saints, Broughton. The installation, in memory of the late Ian Watson, was carried out by the funeral director without prior permission, despite her awareness of the Churchyard Regulations requiring it. Her justification — wanting the bereaved widow to see the memorial before Christmas — was rejected as unreasonable, and her conduct was described as ill-thought and reckless, causing avoidable distress. The Chancellor was concerned about a risk of repetition due to the funeral director’s poor understanding of the faculty jurisdiction. He also accepted unchallenged evidence that the headstone did not comply with the churchyards regulations, particularly regarding height and potential safety concerns, with similar issues noted in two other installations handled by the same funeral director. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty conditionally upon an independent mason certifying the safety and compliance of the three headstones at the funeral director’s expense, and that she pay the costs of the proceedings. Failure to comply within 28 days would result in removal of the Watson headstone. The Chancellor declined to ban the funeral director from future work in the diocese, but reserved the right to revisit his conclusion should the certification process reveal matters of concern. [Re All Saints Broughton [2026] ECC Lee 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary the Virgin, Aldworth [2026] ECC Oxf 10 The Chancellor granted a faculty permitting a memorial for the late singer-songwriter Marianne Faithfull in the churchyard of St Mary’s, Aldworth. The proposed headstone fell outside the diocesan Churchyard Regulations because it included Faithfull’s signature in cursive script on the reverse, together with a short extract from one of her final songs. The court reviewed the law governing memorials that do not comply with churchyard regulations, noting that the correct approach is a merits-based assessment rather than requiring exceptional circumstances. Non-compliance with regulations is a relevant factor but is not, by itself, a reason to refuse a faculty. The Chancellor determined that the proposed design was attractive, dignified, and appropriate. The song lyric reflected Faithfull’s spirituality, while her signature expressed her creativity and public identity as a performer. The PCC, incumbent, and DAC all supported the proposal, and no objections were received. The Chancellor granted the faculty subject to agreement on the precise location of the memorial within the grave space. [Re St. Mary the Virgin, Aldworth [2026] ECC Oxf 10] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary the Virgin Greenham [2026] ECC Oxf 11 The Chancellor granted a faculty authorising the burial in the churchyard of an urn containing the ashes of “Gary Bonsor”, which had been left at a burger van during a race meeting at Newbury Racecourse and later handed to the police. Despite extensive efforts by the racecourse, police and crematoria to trace relatives or the owner, no next of kin could be identified. The parish sought permission to inter the ashes respectfully and record the burial location. The Chancellor held that, although a faculty might not have been strictly necessary because the churchyard remained open for burials, obtaining one was appropriate given the absence of a registrar’s certificate or coroner’s order. He granted the faculty, directing that the interment take place within 28 days. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Greenham [2026] ECC Oxf 11] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Reservation of grave space

Re St. Michael Horton [2026] ECC Oxf 6 Georgina Beldom and her adult daughter Angelina sought a faculty reserving a double-depth grave space for 25 years next to the grave of Georgina’s father in St Michael’s churchyard. The petition was supported by the incumbent, churchwardens, and PCC. However, the churchyard had space remaining for only about six months of further burials, making the requested plot one of the last available spaces.

The petitioners relied on their long-standing family connection with the parish, the presence of five generations of family members buried there, Angelina’s severe epilepsy, autism and learning difficulties, and cultural beliefs within the traveller community favouring burial rather than cremation. The Chancellor reviewed the principles governing grave-space reservations, particularly where burial space is scarce. He reiterated that, when churchyard capacity is very limited, reservations should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, because they may prejudice the burial rights of other parishioners.

Although he expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioners and acknowledged their strong family and cultural connections to the churchyard, he concluded that these factors did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required. The petition was therefore dismissed. [Re St. Michael Horton [2026] ECC Oxf 6] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1 The Chancellor refused Mrs Denise Blundell’s application to reserve a grave space for herself and her husband in the churchyard of St Botolph, Newbold-on-Avon. Mrs Blundell’s mother and sister are buried there, and she argued that being buried near her sister was of profound emotional importance. The court noted that the churchyard has only 25 spaces remaining and, at the current burial rate, is likely to be full within four years. Mrs Blundell is neither a parishioner nor on the church electoral roll, although the incumbent, churchwardens and PCC supported her application. Applying established ecclesiastical case law, the Chancellor held that where burial space is limited, grave reservations should only be granted in exceptional circumstances because they may prejudice the rights of parishioners who have a legal entitlement to burial. The petitioner bore the burden of proving such exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor found that the emotional bond and mutual promises between Mrs Blundell and her sister, while sincere and deeply felt, were not “markedly out of the ordinary” and did not justify reserving a space. The petition was therefore dismissed. [Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Privy Council Business

3 June 2026

• Burial Act 1853 (Notice): An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in St Mary’s Churchyard and Burial Ground, Elloughton, East Riding of Yorkshire.

CDM Decisions and Safeguarding

• The Revd Samuel Cross (June 2026) Decision | Penalty

CFCE Determinations

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.

There has been a continuing delay, year-on-year, in reporting the outcome of CFCE meetings. As we noted in 2023, we have adopted the policy of posting only the links to the latest reported CFCE meeting; at the time of writing this was for the meeting on Thursday 22 October 2025.

Links to other posts

Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:

Church Treasure

• Hatchments, new and old, (22 June).

Churchyards

• Burial of unknown ashes without documentation, (26 June 2026).
• Reservation of spaces in churchyards: update, (13 June 2026).
• Church court approves memorial headstone to Marianne Faithfull, (11 June 2026).
• Faculty conditional upon report of independent memorial masons, (3 June).
• Burial of pets in churchyards – a “Victorian” solution, (3 June 2026)
• Burial of pets in churchyards – an overview, (1 June 2026).

General/Miscellaneous

• Recommendations on Makin Review: Final Report, (23 June 2026).

[Top]

Updated: 30 June 2026 at 12:51. 

[*] This is an approximate classification based upon the  main issues considered by the court. Determinations relating to reordering and building works will often address other aspects of the Petition.

Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.

In this Legal Spirits Short Take, Mattone Center Director Mark Movsesian discusses the recent controversy involving Congressman Dan Goldman and a Brooklyn coffee shop that reportedly said it would have refused him service because of his support for Israel. Was this illegal discrimination based on religion, or a refusal of service based on politics? What does this episode reveal about public accommodations law, political disagreement, and our penchant for turning ordinary commerce into a space for ideological conflict? Listen in!

The post Legal Spirits 079: A Short Take on Coffee Shops and Political Combat appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons, spoken by Sir Thomas More.

New Faith Minister

It has emerged that the new Faith Minister is Lord Lemos, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at MCHLG. He succeeds Nesil Caliskan MP and is the tenth person to hold the role in ten years. He answered an Oral Question in that capacity on 24 June. [With thanks to Religion Media Centre.]

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

On Thursday, the Government published its draft Conversion Practices Bill. The proposed ban under the Bill will set the criminal threshold for conversion practices as conduct that aims to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity through abusive acts that seriously harm the victim.

The draft Bill will create the following criminal offences: 

• carrying out abusive conversion practices that cause serious harm, alarm or distress to the victim; and
• encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice performed outside England and Wales.

It also creates new civil Conversion Practice Protection Orders and breach offences to support victims and those currently at risk of abuse. They will be similar to protection orders for forced marriage and female genital mutilation. The Bill extends to England and Wales only. There was a statement in the House by the Minister for Equalities, here.

The Bishop of Manchester, Rt Revd Dr David Walker, welcomed the draft Bill on behalf of the Church of England, noting that in 2017 the General Synod had voted by a very large majority in favour of the Government bringing forward such a ban.

Places of Worship Renewal Fund: update

On Thursday, there was a short debate in the House of Lords on the Places of Worship Renewal Fund. In reply, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at DCMS made the following points:

• “The fund will provide upfront capital grants to restore listed places of worship, with funding targeted towards the places that need it most.”
• Under the previous Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, many churches had not benefited because they could not raise the capital funds up front.
• The DCMS evaluation of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme showed that 80% of those who benefited said that they would have completed the works anyway, and the DCMS internal analysis of past payments under the LPWGS showed that it disproportionately favoured places with less disadvantage.
• The devolved administrations had received Barnett consequential funding at the Spending Review, taking into account any changes to the overall DCMS settlement. DCMS had made them aware that the Barnett consequentials covered the new scheme, and it was for them to consider whether or not to set up new arrangements.
• First priority was eligible projects in or serving places that face double disadvantage, and only after these had been funded would other projects be considered.
• Second priority was areas with the greatest need, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Once eligible projects in these areas had been funded, projects with the greatest financial need, urgency of repair or community benefit would be considered.

Further work on same-sex blessings and gay clergy marriage in the CofE

The Religion Media Centre reports that although the Church of England’s “Living in Love and Faith” programme on sexuality, relationships, marriage and gender identity may have been brought to a close, unresolved issues remain on the table. In relation to these, the Church has announced that the Bishop of Sodor and Man, Tricia Hillas, will chair the new Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group on legal questions concerning special services involving Prayers of Love and Faith. This group will explore the approval process for bespoke services under canon law, as well as the legislation that would be needed to license or ordain same-sex married clergy. The Bishop of Winchester, Philip Mounstephen, will chair a Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group, offering pastoral advice and guidance on individual cases.

Clergy Conduct Measure: progress

On Tuesday, the Clergy Conduct Measure was considered by a Commons Delegated Legislation Committee. You can read the brief debate here. The Clergy Conduct Rules 2026 (GS 2446) and the associated Explanatory Note (GS 2446X) are to be discussed at General Synod on the afternoon of Saturday 11 July. 

Fundraising updates for faith-based charities

Stone King LLP has recently published a helpful article on Fundraising updates for faith-based charities, by Lee Coley. It covers:

• the new(ish) UK-wide Code of Fundraising Practice;
• highlights of the Code for faith-based charities;
• common fundraising issues for faith-based charities – particularly, fundraising from congregations or faith communities, offerings, tithes and other collections, vulnerable people, and specific appeals for religious buildings;
• the Charity Commission’s guidance on fundraising, which was recently updated;
• the new charitable purpose soft opt-in for direct marketing;
• the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025; and
• the new rules on “professional fundraisers” and “lower-paid collectors”.

Dissolution of the Unification Church in Japan

The Japan Times has reported that the Supreme Court has upheld lower court rulings ordering the dissolution of the Unification Church and rejecting a special appeal filed by the organisation. In a ruling issued Monday, the court’s Third Petty Bench, presided over by Justice Eriko Watanabe, said that the dissolution order “does not violate the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and association.” All four justices supported the ruling. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has finalised a dissolution order for a religious corporation because of unlawful acts under the Civil Code.

Quick links

• Aisha Choudry, Bates Wells: Immigration update: sponsor licence compliance for faith-based organisations, suggesting that there has been an increase in UK Visa and Immigration’s scrutiny of sponsorship activity undertaken by faith-based organisations – and how to be compliant.

The dilemma faced by the PCC was that a cremation urn had been left at Newbury Racecourse following a race meeting and despite extensive efforts by the racecourse, police and crematoria to trace relatives or the owner, no next of kin could be identified. Although the police thought they knew the family, the said family denied any link to the urn.

The churchwarden heard of the situation and thought it would be ‘good publicity’ for the incoming vicar, the Revd Gail Minter, imagining that she would contact the local press to trace the family and reunite them with the urn, or take a burial and publicise that. However, in consultation with the Associate Archdeacon, she concluded that this was not an appropriate approach. The police declined to take possession of the ashes; the PCC discussed the matter and wish to bury the ashes so that they have a permanent resting place. The only alternative – to keep them in church in a safe place in the hope that the family try to trace them – seemed unlikely given the attempts already made to get in touch.

Re St. Mary the Virgin Greenham [2026] ECC Oxf 11

The papers submitted to the court include a photograph of the urn containing the ashes. This bears two printed labels, one above the other: R.I.P GARY BONSOR; MY DAD MY HERO. Further detail is contained within an email sent to the vicar from the front counter of Newbury Police Station on 18 September 2025 and headed ‘Re: Ashes in urn collected from Newbury Police Station 09/09/25’. This reads as follows:

“Thank you for your query. I cannot really provide you with much pertinent information and Newbury Racecourse have requested no negative publicity. A member of staff from Newbury Racecourse attended Newbury Police Station last year and advised the urn and contents had been left on a burger van counter. The exact date is unknown, however they had checked all race tickets for the name of Bonsor.

We took possession of the ashes and conducted numerous checks to try to return them to a family member this returned a negative result. We requested assistance from local crematoriums who were unable to provide information. Our colleague Joanne Macdonald has then advised us that you may be able to assist and your churchwarden Chris Simons has collected the ashes from us on 09/09/25″.

The minutes of a meeting of the Parochial Church Council on 14 October 2025[1] correctly noted “We cannot legally bury without the right paperwork, which we do not have”[2]. Hodge Ch. commented:

“[6]. Since the churchyard does not appear to be closed to burials, I am not sure that a faculty is strictly required to authorise the interment of these ashes. In the unusual circumstances of this case, however, and with no registrar’s certificate or coroner’s order available, I well understand why the vicar should seek the authority of a faculty. It is clearly appropriate that the urn containing these ashes should be reverently laid to rest within the churchyard in accordance with the rites of the Church of England; and that the place and circumstances of the burial should be recorded on the churchyard plan. I grant a faculty for this purpose. The interment of the urn containing the ashes should take place within 28 days from the grant of this faculty.

[1]. Under item 6, headed ‘Irregular Burial of Ashes’) as follows:

“GM [the vicar] reported that an urn containing ashes had been left on the counter of a burger van by someone attending a race day at Newbury Racecourse on 24 July. Despite a rigorous search for a record of the person named on it, no trace of them has been found and the police have handed it to Gail as vicar of the parish that is now responsible for it. We cannot legally bury without the right paperwork, which we do not have. GM has sought advice from the Diocese; we can either keep the urn somewhere in the church or apply to the Diocesan Chancellor for a faculty to bury in the churchyard. GM has ascertained that the Diocese would pay the faculty fee. PCC approved unanimously for GM to apply for the faculty. The grave would have to be unmarked, but noted on the graveyard plan”.

[2]. The Guidebook for The Clergy, General Register Office, (Issued 2012, Last Updated August 2024) list only one exception to the rule that a registrar’s certificate or coroner’s order must be produced before the burial is allowed to take place, (para.9.5 and Appendix U), neither of  which is applicable in this case.

Comment

L&RUK is not the correct vehicle for pursuing information to the possible identity of Gary Bonsor, which should be directed towards the Diocesan Registrar. On a more general point, those seeking information on Scattering Ashes at Horse Racing Tracks and Circuits a list is provided in the post, although it does not include Newbury.

On 25 June 2026, the Church posted the pre-Synod Press Release National unity and global challenges on agenda in final meeting of current Synod; also released today were links to the Agenda and Papers for the meeting, which are reproduced below.

Thinking Anglicans has posted links to the papers grouped by the day on which they are due to be debated.

Outline of business and agenda

• Outline of Business
• GS 2442 Agenda July 2026
• GS 2443 Report by the Business Committee
• Zipped GS papers
• Zipped GS Misc papers

On 23 June 2026, the Church of England published the final report on the recommendations of the Makin Review and the work of the Task and Finish Group, extracts of which are reproduced below, [emphasis added].

Hatchments have now largely fallen into disuse, but many hatchments from former times remain in parish churches throughout England. Many English parish churches contain one or two hatchments to a lord of the manor, or previous vicar. Nevertheless, hatchments (and similar heraldic memorials) occasionally feature in consistory court judgments.

New hatchments

With regard to the installation of new hatchments memorializing a former member of the congregation, in Re St. Michael Bowness-on-Solway [2025] ECC Car 7, permission was sought by Mrs. Mary Maxwell-Irving to hang a hatchment at St. Michael’s Church, Bowness-on-Solway in memory of her late husband, Dr Alistair M T Maxwell-Irving [1]. Fryer-Spedding Ch. commented:

“[2] The petition is unopposed and has the unanimous support of the PCC. Nonetheless, I consider it appropriate to give this judgment for two reasons. First is because of the law to the effect that permission for memorials in churches ought to be sparingly granted. Second is because, by a majority, the Diocesan Advisory Committee has not recommended this proposal for approval”.

By a majority, the DAC did not recommend approval, considering a hatchment anachronistic, and questioning the Petitioner’s involvement with the parish. However, Fryer-Spedding Ch. reviewed the law on memorials, especially: Re St Margaret Eartham [1981] Court of Arches, (memorial fixed to wall); Re St. Mary Longstock [2006] 1 WLR 259, (stained glass window); Re St. Mary Magdalene Adlestrop 2017 ECC Glo 2, (hatchment) and Re Holy Trinity Bledlow [2020] ECC Oxf 4, (heraldic banners to  6th Baron Carrington). He concluded that hatchments occupy a “hybrid” category akin to heraldic banners, and determined that the test of exceptionality applied. Rejecting arguments of anachronism, he held continuity with tradition a virtue and directed that the faculty be granted.

With regard to involvement in the local community, in Re St. Mary Magdalene Adlestrop 2017 ECC Glo 2,  Rodgers Ch. observed:

“[37] …  Three people from a village of 80 does not to me indicate a groundswell of opposition…it appeared that there was a subplot [at the PCC meeting] involving some local objections or dislike of changes at Adlestrop Park following Mrs. Collins’s death in 2013…As I say these arguments did not help me, and as they appeared to be being carried on not by the persons involved but ostensibly on their behalf and smacked of village tittle-tattle which did not go to the matter in hand”.

She concluded that there were amply sufficient reasons to permit this hatchment to be introduced, and more generally:

“Hatchments, if displaying legally authorised Coats of Arms[3], can with sufficient reason be introduced by Faculty. The fact that they are now rare does not in itself preclude them being introduced”.

A faculty was granted on condition “that the design on the hatchment is formally approved by a Herald from the College of Arms: i.e. is it suitable to reflect that it is for a deceased wife, or should it be altered to reflect that her husband is still alive (so that on his death it can subsequently altered as appropriate)”[4] .

The judgment Re Holy Trinity Bledlow [2020] ECC Oxf 4 [2020] ECC Oxf 4 considered the introduction of two heraldic banners which had belonged the 6th Baron Carrington. One of the banners had previously hung in St Paul’s Cathedral, London, and the other in St George’s Chapel, Windsor; according to custom, these had been returned to the family on his death. Hodge Ch. outlined the proper approach to be taken, viz,

“[5] Since the banners are to be hung in the church to commemorate the late Lord Carrington, the court has to consider whether the requirement of exceptionality relating to the character or service of the person to be commemorated that would apply in the case of the erection of a monument or memorial plaque applies also in the case of the present faculty application. A similar question was considered, in the context of the introduction of a stained glass window…in Re St Mary, Longstock [2006] 1 WLR 259 (decided prior to the decision of the Court of Arches in the leading case of Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158)…”.

The court was satisfied both that during his long life the Late Lord Carrington had made an outstanding contribution to the life of the nation and that he had enjoyed a sufficiently close connection to the village of Bledlow and its church.

[11]. …When worshippers in, and visitors to, the church view Lord Carrington’s heraldic banners, they should feel inspired that a local  person should have achieved so much in life, having served his country so selflessly, and having behaved with such integrity.

[12]. Turning to the Duffield questions, the court agrees with the DAC’s assessment that the installation of the two heraldic banners will not harm the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. As the DAC has noted, in principle the introduction of the banners is reversible. In practice, however, once they have been installed it is unlikely that the banners will ever be removed from the church. The court should therefore approach this application on the basis that the banners will become a permanent feature of the west end of the nave… When looking west from the chancel the banners will have little visual impact. They will be mounted sufficiently high that they will not obscure the view of the nave arch or the clerestory windows… “

Stolen hatchments subsequently returned

Despite their size and restricted accessibility, the theft of hatchments is not unknown. Nevertheless, there are recent cases in which examples have been returned. On 31 May 2026, the BBC reported a hatchment stolen in 1996 from St Leonard’s Church, Flamstead, Hertfordshire, had been identified and would be reintroduced on 4 June as part of the local Arts Festival. This bore similarities with the case of a hatchment from St Margaret’s Church on the Felbrigg estate in Norfolk, stolen in 1993 but was eventually returned by the Essex Police Rural Engagement Team. To date no judicial consideration of these cases has been reported.

Reintroduction of stolen “church treasures”

The introduction of new items into churches and the retrospective approval of existing ones introduced without permission are frequently addressed by the courts. However, the conditions under which stolen “church treasures” may be reintroduced have received less judicial consideration; Lists A and B of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules include provisions for: “the sale or other disposal of an article of architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic interest“; and “the introduction of a monument, or the carrying out of work to a monument erected in or on, or on the curtilage of, a church or other consecrated building or on consecrated ground“.

However, there is no generic heading for the reinstatement of items which have been stolen and returned. Whilst it might be argued that the replacement of a stolen item that already had faculty approval is akin to the “like-for-like” provisions in Lists A and B, there are important differences: even if reintroduced in its former location without additional changes to the fabric of the church, the fact that it has been stolen may require additional security precautions to be introduced.

These issues were considered in Re Coombes Parish Church [2016] ECC Chi 5 following the unexpected return of the small corpus from a crucifix following its theft which led to a consideration of its future safe-keeping; in Gorilla’s head leads to return of church relic we supplemented the consistory court judgment with a summary of the complex police investigation, initiated by the enforcement of the CITES regulations.

The importance of Re Coombes Parish Church  lies in the application of the Court of Arches judgment in Re St. Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches, and the conditions imposed which ensure that the corpus remains within the jurisdiction of the consistory court, despite its relocation to the Cathedral Treasury.

The above examples of recovery of “church treasures” which have been stolen indicate the potentially long time-line between “theft” and “recovery”; they also highlight the importance of the churches’ own records for proof of ownership; the Art Loss Register (“the leading due diligence provider for the art market”); catalogues of auctioneers; the work of local police rural engagement teams, and others interested in the art market.

[1] In heraldic terms a “lozenge” is a diamond or rhomboid shape, with four sides of equal length.

[2] “Hatchments were usually placed over the entrance of the armiger’s residence, at the level of the second floor, and remained for from between 40 days and twelve months, after which they were removed to the local parish church. The practice developed in the early seventeenth century from the custom of carrying an heraldic shield before the coffin of the deceased, then leaving it for display in the church. In medieval times, helmets and shields were sometimes deposited in churches and a few examples may still be seen in English parish churches”. See Re St Andrew, Thornhaugh [1975] Peterborough Const. Ct., T.R. Fitzwalter Butler Ch. on the Sale of the “Russell Helmet”; and Re St Lawrence Wootton [2013] Winchester Const. Ct, Christopher Harvey Clark Ch.  on the sale of the armet.

[3] The College of Arms states: When the memorial is submitted the fees due upon a grant of arms become payable. Such fees are laid down by Earl Marshal’s Warrant. As of 1 January 2026 the fees payable upon a personal grant of arms and crest are £9,600, a similar grant to an impersonal but non-profit making body, £19,830, and to a commercial company, £29,560. When a grant of arms includes the grant of a badge or (to eligible grantees) supporters, or the exemplification of a standard, a further fee is payable. A special reduced fee of £11,380 has been introduced for parish, town and community councils, to cover the grant of arms alone, without crest.

[4] The importance in hatchments lies in the background as well as the Coat of Arms, for the colour of the former will determine whether the deceased was a widower or a widow. The background will vary from all black to black and white halves. The custom developed for impaled arms that when the spouse was still living the background behind their half of the shield would be rendered white, as distinct from the black background of deceased person.

Typical examples are shown here, including the Hatchment of: a Widower whose second wife survives him (four options); a Bishop; a Man who has married an Heraldic Heiress.

The BBC reports that Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood, Lab), who came second in the ballot for Commons private Members’ bills, is to take up the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that failed in the last session of Parliament when it ran out of time in the Lords. According to the report, her intention is to introduce an identical bill to the one that was read the third time in the Commons and sent to the Lords, with the intention of invoking the procedure under the Parliament Acts, assuming that the Commons passes the bill and the Lords fails to do so.

The text of the bill as first printed by the Lords is here, and there is a Commons guide to the procedure under the Parliament Acts here. 

Proscription of Palestine Action was lawful

On Monday, a five-judge Court of Appeal composed of Bs Carr LCJ, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR and Edis, Lewis and Whipple LJJ handed down a unanimous judgment on the Government’s appeal against the ruling of the Administrative Court that its ban on Palestine Action was illegal. In the lower court, Palestine Action’s founder, Huda Ammori, had successfully argued that the decision to proscribe the group breached her rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR; however, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Huda Ammori, R (on the application of) [2026] EWCA Civ 721.

The Court of Appeal concluded that “The Proscription Decision ought not to have been quashed” [7]:

“The Home Secretary did not fail to comply with her Proscription Policy, on its proper interpretation. The purpose of the Proscription Policy was not to limit or constrain the factors available to the Home Secretary for consideration. She was fully entitled to take into account the operational benefits of proscription in dealing with Palestine Action holistically as an organisation. On the basis of the Proscription Policy, the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was, subject to the questions of proportionality and fair balance, lawful” [8].

Though the Court rejected the Home Secretary’s argument that Article 17 ECHR (prohibition of abuse of rights) meant that any expression of support for, or association with, Palestine Action was outside the scope of Articles 10 and 11, it concluded that, though the proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action was highly controversial and that it was supported by many otherwise law-abiding citizens [204] and was engaged in peaceful as well as non-peaceful protest,

“It is, nonetheless, a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation that operates using secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy the property of third parties. Palestine Action’s activities have caused injury as well as property damage” [205] …

The Proscription Decision was not unlawful. We set aside the quashing order of 25 February 2026 made by the Divisional Court” [208].

Ms Ammori has said that she intends to appeal the judgment to the UK Supreme Court. But that assumes that she will be given permission to appeal, which is by no means automatic.

Council orders Buddhist group to stop worship at former pub

On 16 June, the Religion Media Centre reported that Waltham Forest council had ordered the Buddhist group, the Confucius & Tao Association, to stop using the Lord Brooke former pub in Walthamstow. The council said that the group was undertaking activities despite a rejected planning application from a decade ago; the Buddhist association bought the building in June 2014 but was refused planning permission to convert it into a place of worship, only allowing informal meetings.

Six weeks ago, the council demanded that the association stop its “unauthorised use of the land and buildings as a place of worship, associated community centre, and ancillary café” and that fixtures and fittings associated with the temple must be removed. The association is appealing the decision.

Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross

Archdeacon Andrew Orr has been elected as the new Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross. Archdeacon Orr succeeds the Rt Revd Paul Colton, whose last public service in the diocese was on Saturday, 18 April 2026. 

Quick links

• Pierluigi Consorti, DiReSoM: The ECtHR Judgment in Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Italy: A First Note.
• Matthew England, Hansard Society: Must MPs choose between improving the assisted dying bill and using the Parliament Act? An examination of the “suggested amendments” procedure of s.2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911.
• Massimo Introvigne, Bitter Winter: “Intese”: Strasbourg Condemns Italy’s Forty-Year Exclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
• Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee: To consider the Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221), 23 June 2026 at 16:30.

Papers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod are due to be published on 25 June. Links to those currently available are below.

Following a period of prayer, reflection, and discernment, the Church in Wales is pleased to announce that the Very Revd Dr Manon Ceridwen James has been elected as the 82nd Bishop of Bangor.

The election took place at Holy Trinity Church, Llandudno, during a meeting of the Electoral College, which convened on 16 June. Comprising 45 clergy and lay representatives from across the Church in Wales, as well as the diocesan bishops, the College met to select the successor to the Right Reverend Andrew John, who retired in August 2025.

About Manon Ceridwen James

Manon Ceridwen James is the Dean of Bangor Cathedral where she has been addressing numerous challenging governance and finance issues for the past year. Manon was brought up in Nefyn, on the Llŷn peninsula, and was ordained deacon in 1994 in Bangor Cathedral before being amongst the first women to be ordained priest in the diocese in 1997. She has served as a parish priest in both Bangor and St Asaph dioceses as well as holding a variety of diocesan roles in training, education and vocations, the last of which was as Director of Ministry.

From 2018 to 2025 Manon was the Dean for Initial Ministerial Training at the St Padarn’s Institute in Cardiff. In her free time, Manon enjoys writing poetry and going to Wrexham and Wales football matches as well as comedy events with her husband, Dylan who is Group Financial Controller of Bangor University. Manon has a degree in Theology from Cambridge University and a PhD in Practical Theology from the University of Birmingham. Amongst her publications are a book based on her PhD research, Women, Identity and Religion in Wales and a poetry collection – Notes from a Eucharistic Life. Several of her school assemblies have also been published by SPCK.

Upon reaching the required two-thirds majority vote, the announcement was made at the doors of Holy Trinity Church, confirming Manon Ceridwen James as the bishop-elect to lead the Diocese of Bangor—a region steeped in history, stretching from Ynys Môn to the Llŷn Peninsula, and deeply rooted in traditions of pilgrimage and prayer.

The Archbishop of Wales, Cherry Vann said, “Manon is well-known to the people of the diocese and she will be a huge asset to the diocese and the Province and the Bench of Bishops. We are delighted at her election and wish her every blessing as she steps into this ministry.”

Following this election, the bishop-elect has a period of up to 28 days to formally accept the position. Should they accept, the election will then be formally ratified at a meeting of the bishops in sacred synod, followed by the consecration and enthronement in due course.

Comment

In her article in the Church Times, Madeleine Davies summarizes the time-line of events following the retirement of the previous Bishop of Bangor, the Rt Revd Andrew John, in August 2025 having apologized for his part in the failings at Bangor Cathedral, in the wake of two reports that recorded concerns about “weak financial controls” and “inappropriate behaviours”.

Why did the judge in The King v Vickrum Singh Digwa (1/6/26) describe the assailant, Digwa, as “carrying a large Sikh dagger” in “a sheath attached to a belt over the outside,” which would go onto brutally kill young Henry Nowak? Why did he say “[i]t is a strict requirement of the Sikh faith to have a knife, called a kirpan, at all times” and that “[generally, this will be a small knife, hidden from view, often on a length of cord and worn around the neck.”[1] If it is a ‘kirpan’ why not call it that? And does it matter that it was called a ‘knife’ first and a ‘kirpan’ only later? Is the Sikh ‘kirpan’ a knife?

Lawyers know only too well that how an issue is framed determines how it is addressed. In law, as in life, context and framing are everything. Framing defines scope. Scoping determines rights and liabilities. The law is correctly applied. Irrelevant issues are scrupulously avoided. In point of fact, Henry Nowak was not stabbed by a knife, and still less a Kirpan, but by an Afghan Peshkab, a ferocious weapon “designed to go through chainmail”[2], and which Digwa had no business carrying. Digwa was apparently offered manslaughter by the prosecution, but foolishly declined it, insisting he acted in self-defence, notwithstanding overwhelming contrary evidence, only to then deservedly got the sentence that he did. Throughout the trial, the terminology of ‘knife’, ‘dagger’, ‘kirpan’, ‘shaster’ and ‘bladed article’ was used interchangeably by lawyers and judge alike, obfuscating the issue at hand. Traditional Sikh Kirpans (described as ‘a small knife’ by the judge) would not even cut cheese. They are ceremonial and purely symbolic, which is why the judge correctly explained, “[i]t is a fundamental principle of Sikhism that any kirpan is worn as a symbol of religious faith and is never to be carried for an offensive purpose.”[3] This is not a far cry from the words of an Australian judge that, “[t]he kirpan represents spiritual, religious and moral sanctions and rights and responsibilities of an initiated Sikh.”[4] Thus, when the issue is framed as a ‘kirpan’ (and not as a knife) the conclusion inevitably follows as it should.

The difference in approach is to do with the difference between Western essentialism and Eastern non-essentialism. In the West, Aristotle talked of things in terms of their ‘essences’.[5] The essence of a thing is what it fundamentally is.[6]Its property invests it with its ‘nature’.[7]  So, a Kirpan has the essence of a ‘blade’, a ‘dagger’ or a ‘sword’. This why in the trial the Sikh kirpan was equated with a humble kitchen ‘knife’, or a not-so humble ‘dagger’.

Under the Sikh Code of Conduct (‘the Rehat Nama’) as the Expert Witness, Prof. Gurnam Singh explained,[8] the Kirpan is one of the 5 K’s, being a 3-6 inch blade, but there is no religious injunction requiring a second Kirpan to be worn. Yet at the trial, Digwa insisted that he wore the Afghan Peshkab as a religious obligation, and falsely insisted that it was a kirpan. It was not a kirpan nor ‘a large Sikh dagger.’ And, it would have been easy to gainsay this but for Aristotle’s  thinking, which entrenched itself so forcefully during the Scholastic period.[9] Given how profoundly it has affected the viewing objects in terms of their essences it is unsurprising that courtroom deliberations so quickly fell into use of the language of a knife and a dagger. This is not to say that Western essentialism has not been challenged. Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) thought ‘essences’ can only be meaningful for a specific category of human experience.[10] The human experience of the Sikh kirpan is not that it is a knife. For Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000), only in the description of certain phenomena does the definition of a thing in terms of its essences actually work. Objects mostly do not have essential properties.[11] In Eastern thinking, all phenomena are devoid of essence. A Sikh would be alarmed at a suggestion the Kirpan had any malign connotations. Neither a knife, nor scissors, nor one’s hands actually have an intrinsic essence of their own.

For the rest, the judge’s decision is both careful and sensitive to its subject-matter. Importantly, it brings to the fore the existence of a group previously overlooked. As the judge told Digwa, “[y]ou are a member of an order of Sikhs called the Nihang who have a tradition of having a second knife, or kirpan and that is often fully visible,” although the reference to a ‘knife’ was again misconceived. The judge rightly noted that, “[y]ou  observed that tradition in your everyday life, at work and in public” and then importantly observed how “it was not a strict requirement” and that this was manifestly “ borne out by the fact that neither your brother nor father … were so dressed.”[12] Instead, as Professor Gurnam Singh’s expert testimony noted, “[o]ver the last 30 years” young people “wearing a kirpan” do sometimes “see it as an act of resistance…”[13]

For the Press and the Politician the die, however, was cast. The Sikh Kirpan now stood indistinguishable from a “knife”. The BBC gave an erroneously convoluted report of the “stabbing (of) the Southampton University student with a ceremonial blade Sikhs are required by their faith to carry”.[14] Yet in 2009, it had correctly reported that “in Sikhism the Kirpan is an instrument of non-violence that should be used to prevent harm from being done to a defenceless person.”[15] Was the Court’s judgment the reason for this obfuscation? The use of a “large Sikh knife” was also wrongly identified by others.[16] The fall-out did not stop there. Henry Nowak’s gruesome murder became, overnight, a watershed moment in British race relations. Nigel Farage called for “pure cold rage.” US Vice President J.D. Vance demanded “righteous anger” and blamed the “mass invasion of migrants”[17], quite  forgetting that Digwa was a British-born son of a British-born father. David Lammy[18] and Harriet Harman[19] both hinted at the privilege of kirpans being taken away. The Sikh Federation, based in Southampton, responded that “under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and its July 2022 statutory guidance, a kirpan is clearly defined and understood to feature a curved blade,” which Digwa was not using.[20] There was talk of so-called two-tier policing, which one notable commentator debunked because, “it is simply not tenable to suggest that the problem here was that the police were more preoccupied with accusations of racism than an act of murder” as “[t]he police were taken in by the word of two people at the scene against the word of one” so that, “Digwa’s lie was always going to succeed briefly.”[21]  Nevertheless, the British Sikh Report 2025, released this year, now notes how, 49% of Sikhs surveyed, are already worried about rising anti-Sikh sentiment. That concern will rise.[22] Even so, the Sikh Federation has urged that “fully practising Sikhs who wear a Kirpan should continue to recognise the serious responsibility that accompanies it…”[23]

Could the judge have spoken differently?  He could, and indeed, he did. He too had noted[24], “[t]he privilege extended to practising Sikhs of being allowed to be in public with a bladed article.” This is language drawn from section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which refers to “to any article which has a blade”[25] and states that “it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him”[26]carried “for religious reasons.”[27] The protection conferred is in terms of a defence but it is not for religious reasons alone, begging the question whether David Lammy and Harriet Harman mischaracterised the situation as a ‘religious exemption’, because the same provision also allows for such an article “as part of any national costume.”[28] This covers the sgian dhubh blade when worn as part of Scottish Highland dress. Is it seriously now contended that this will be removed from a proud Scotsman? Surely, the question is not the item per se but its use – precisely the question in Digwa.

What is needed is mature reflection. To the question, “[w]hy would Digwa have carried a lethal weapon unless he intended it to be available for his use?”[29] could be the response that he carried it as a matter of Nihang national costume.

Satvinder S Juss

[1] at §10

[2] As the murder weapon was described by the Sikh Federation: see Charlotte Coles and  Allen Sinclair, “Sikh group calls for inquiry into Henry Nowak death”, 8 June 2026 (Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0g4qmmry7o )

[3] at §12

[4] Athwal v State of Queensland [2023] QCA 156 at §66

[5] J. L. Ackrill , Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione  (OUP, 1975) .  Also see, David Charles, Aristotle on  Meaning and Essence(OUP, 2002).  Further see, Charollette Witt, Substance and Essence in Aristotle :  An Interpretation of Metaphysics  VII –IX (Cornell Univ Pres, 1989)

[6] Aristotle, Metaphysics (London: Penguin Books Ltd.,1998), at p.168.

[7] Steven K. Strange, (1992) Porphyry: On Aristotle, Categories. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).

[8] cited at § 11

[9] Though see, N. Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny & Jan Pinborg (1982) Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).  Also see, D. Chalmers,  (1999) “Is there Synonymy in Occam’s Mental Language?” published in The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, edited by Paul Vincent Spade. (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1999)

[10] Husserl is accredited with founding the phenomenological movement. See, esp. Jitendranath Mohanty, The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl, (Yale Univ. Press, 2008) ; Also see Edmund Husserl, Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology,  (Northwestern University Press, 1970).

[11] Willard Van Orman Quine, Word and object , (MIT, 1960)

[12] at §11

[13] at §10

[14] Ethan Gudge, BBC News, “Sikhs ‘demonised’ after murder, says community leader”.

[15] BBC News, “Boy’s Sikh dagger in school ban”, 13 October 2009

[16] Steven Morris, “Southampton man jailed for life for murder of student with ‘religious’ knife” The Guardian 1 June 2026

[17] Gaby Hinsliff, “Let this be a warning – if Europe worries about Trump, it has even more reason to fear JD Vance” The Guardian, 9 June 2026

[18] Craig Munro, “Lammy says Sikhs’ blade ‘privilege can be taken away’ after Henry Nowak death” The Metro, 7 June 2026,

[19] Sky News, “Henry Nowak’s murder shows we need to end religious exemptions for knife laws, ex-deputy Labour leader says”, 5 June 2026,

[20] Charlotte Coles and  Allen Sinclair, BBC News, “Sikh group calls for inquiry into Henry Nowak death”, 8 June 2026, which also reports how a full inquest into the death of the student is due to open at Winchester Coroner’s Court with a jury on 20^th  September 2027.

[21] Stephen Bush, “Fatal Lies” Financial Times, 3 June 2026

[22] Immediately following Henry Nowak’s murder, the author was personally contacted by the Vice-Dean and the Dean of his law school, as well as by the Vice Chancellor, all of whom offered support, for which he remains grateful.

[23] Aamna Mohdin, “Kirpans and UK knife law: what are the rules?” The Guardian, 2 June 2026

[24] at §11

[25] at §139(2)

[26] at §139(5)

[27] at §139(5)(b)

[28] at §139(5)(c)

[29] Joshua Rozenberg, A lawyer writes: “Unduly lenient?” 3 June 2026

Introduction

Ahead of Archbishop Sarah Mullally’s first General Synod as president, in February 2026, the House of Bishops announced its intention to draw a line under the Living in Love and Faith project which had generated seven years of intense Anglican angst, heated debates, and fractured relationships. But the ecclesial shocks to the Church of England continue to reverberate and the fault lines still grow deeper. Anglican strategists, across the theological spectrum, continue to put new ‘facts on the ground’ in their efforts to change the church.

The latest strategic move by progressive Anglicans, who hope to reform the Church of England’s doctrine and liturgical practice, is the Private Member’s Motion of Professor Helen King (vice-chair of Together for the Church of England) due to be considered by General Synod in July 2026. At the same time, conservative Anglicans who hope to reform the Church of England’s institutional structures have not been idle. They also continue to move their strategy forward and to stretch the ecclesial boundaries.

For example, the Church of England Evangelical Council has now commissioned 40 senior incumbents and retired bishops as Alternative Spiritual Overseers (ASOs) to provide oversight for about 250 clergy and 50 Parochial Church Councils who are in impaired relationships with their bishops. The title ‘overseer’ is synonymous with ‘bishop’, though the ASOs are careful to emphasise their ‘spiritual’ rather than ‘jurisdictional’ responsibilities. Alternative structures are steadily being built within the Church of England.

Alternative ordinations are a significant plank in these new structures. In June 2025, I reported on the ordination of seven deacons by Bishop Martin Morrison of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa (REACH SA), for service as ‘missionary clergy’ in Church of England parishes. In a letter to Sarah Mullally and Stephen Cottrell, Morrison explained that he agreed to conduct the ordinations, at the request of English clergy, ‘with the aim of sustaining and advancing faithful Anglican evangelical witness and to ensure we do not lose a generation of gifted gospel workers to ordained ministry.’ Mullally and Cottrell rebuked this South African intervention as ‘ecumenically discourteous’, unnecessary, and ‘inflammatory.’ [1]

Nevertheless, the momentum continues. On Thursday 11 June 2026, Morrison returned to the East London Tabernacle, a Baptist chapel in Mile End, for a second round of ordinations of the next seven deacons. This time, there was no epistolary exchange with the Archbishops. It was an understated affair, almost ‘business as usual’. The significance of these ordinations is no longer their novelty but their normalcy. A pattern has been established and is growing more deeply embedded. This report offers a brief eyewitness account of the ordination service, with a critique.

The 2026 Ordination cohort

The alternative ordination pathway aims to replicate all three parts of the normal Church of England pathway – selection, training, and ordination – except that the training is self-financed without access to Church of England grants. In the 2026 cohort, five of the seven deacons are graduates of the Proclamation Trust’s Leaders’ Training Course (LTC), formerly known as ‘Cornhill Plus’, which markets itself as ‘seminary level vocational training’. [2] It offers an evangelical alternative to the Church of England’s theological colleges and courses. A typical training pathway encompasses the ‘pre-seminary’ Cornhill Training Course for two days a week over two years, followed by LTC for one day a week over four years (plus three residential study weeks each year). Its primary focus is upon biblical study and preaching, with no exams and no university validation, while students spend most of the week employed by a local church. Graduates of LTC are encouraged to pursue a Master’s degree in theology via an established university, such as the ‘Common Awards’ MA in Theology, Ministry and Mission at Durham. Currently, there are 38 leaders-in-training enrolled in LTC (across all four years), two-thirds of whom are Anglicans heading towards REACH ordinations. In normal circumstances, these candidates would have been through the standard Church of England route of selection panel, theological college or course, and ordination to a curacy. But now they refuse to do so and, as a result, the Church of England is haemorrhaging evangelical ordinands every year.

Six of the seven REACH deacons in 2026 were recommended for ordination by the ReNew network’s Alternative Selection Panel (ASP), which mirrors the Church of England’s national selection process. It includes three one-hour interviews examining the candidate’s theology, pastoral gifts, and personal character, plus references, safeguarding checks, and a pastoral exercise.[3] Before the East London Tabernacle service, the congregation was addressed by Rod Thomas (former Bishop of Maidstone), who chairs the ASP. He explained that this alternative pathway became necessary in December 2023 when the House of Bishops commended the Prayers of Love of Faith. Until that commendation is withdrawn, or alternative provision is agreed, Thomas declared, ‘we cannot pretend we’re walking together’.

The service itself, with a congregation of about 120 people, followed the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer as adapted by REACH. It was stripped back to the bare evangelical essentials, without the many ceremonial flourishes typical in a Church of England context. The dress code for ordinands was suit and tie, though the bishop wore a purple shirt and dog collar. There was not a surplice in sight and no Holy Communion (even though this is mandated by the Prayer Book at every ordination). Rather than kneeling before the bishop, the ordinands stood in a line facing the congregation during the ordination prayer. Bishop Morrison highlighted the seriousness of the vows and asserted that the seven deacons would be found accountable on the Day of Judgment for whether they had kept them. He warned that if they fell into serious doctrinal or moral error, they would have their licences removed or be ‘defrocked’.

The bishop preached a 34-minute sermon, expounding St Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20). He outlined the ‘essence’ or KPIs (key performance indicators) of ordained ministry, emphasising that Anglican clergy must always teach the Bible not their own opinions or ideologies, must always be ‘inclusive’ by reaching out intentionally to everyone in their local area, and must always be relational and accessible. He argued that a ‘celebrity pastor’ is an oxymoron, and that the root of church abuse begins when clergy forget they are shepherds of God’s flock. The sermon ended with an evangelistic appeal.

There were three hymns, led by a small music group (a piano, two guitars, and a singer), and the service concluded with a rousing rendition of Samuel Stone’s The Church’s One Foundation. It originates as part of Stone’s 12-poem cycle based on the Apostles’ Creed, Lyra Fidelium (1866), written when Stone was a young Church of England curate disturbed by the Colenso Crisis which was unsettling Victorian Anglicanism. Its famous lines, ‘by schisms rent asunder / by heresies distressed’, are a reminder that the Anglican Communion’s present travails are nothing new – although as Bishop Michael Marshall once wrote, the ‘theological gnats’ which troubled the Communion in the 1860s have now ‘grown into a stampede of elephants’.[4] Stone’s original includes another striking verse, usually absent from modern hymnals, which was sung with gusto as the alternative ordination reached its finale:

“The church shall never perish!/ Her dear Lord, to defend,/ to guide, sustain and cherish, / is with her to the end;

though there be those that hate her/ and false sons in her pale,/ against the foe or traitor/ she ever shall prevail.”

Critique

The REACH ordinations are described as a temporary provision to address a pressing emergency. They have been stimulated by a Church of England crisis, and a breakdown in wider relationships, with confidence in the House of Bishops at its lowest ebb. But even the organisers themselves acknowledge that this alternative route to ordination is not a viable long-term solution. It is merely a holding pattern, until a better way forward can be negotiated. There are three obvious limitations to this process which demand attention.

(i) Confidentiality

Every ordination should be proclaimed from the rooftops and widely celebrated. This is a fundamental principle. Ordination is a public event, marking entrance into a public ministry. Candidates must therefore be open to scrutiny by the wider church and their ordinations should not be confidential. There might be rare exceptions to this rule, in nations under oppressive anti-Christian regimes where new clergy risk their lives, but this hardly applies in England. However, for the second year running, the REACH ordinations were not widely advertised. There have been no press releases after the event, by REACH or by the Church of England congregations who have received the new deacons, and their identities are deliberately withheld from the public for fear of social media recriminations or episcopal sanctions. Indeed, if it was not for the Law & Religion UK reports, the very existence of these ordinations would be unknown to the wider church.

At the ordination service, the name of each ordinand was announced as they were presented to the bishop, but nothing about the churches in which they serve. If their training incumbents were present – which perhaps they were not – they were deliberately inconspicuous and impossible to identify. This reticence is not healthy or sustainable in the long term. Full transparency over ordinations is essential. It would be better for the new deacons and their training incumbents, if they are confident in their actions, to be publicly announced and face the consequences.

(ii) Women and men

The relationship between men and women in public ministry looms large over the REACH ordinations. All fourteen new deacons, in 2025 and 2026, are men in their 20s or early 30s, though ethnically diverse. During the latest ordination service, all three Scripture passages were read by women, and the deacons’ wives joined their husbands on the platform for the post-ordination prayer. But no women were ordained. Why not? REACH is a complementarian evangelical denomination, but it opens the diaconate equally to women and men. ReNew’s Alternative Selection Panel likewise welcomes women to apply for the diaconate, but none have yet done so. On complementarians’ own principles, a diaconal ordination record of 14-0 is an unbalanced result, when it should be 7-7.

Compare this with the proactive efforts of the Anglican Mission in England (AMIE), a complementarian evangelical diocese withing the Anglican Network in Europe (ANIE), a proto-province sponsored by the conservative Gafcon movement. AMIE is rapidly planting Anglican congregations across England, separate from the Church of England, and now has 50 licensed clergy – many of whom were originally ordained by the Church of England. In a significant recent development, AMIE ordained their first woman deacon in May 2026, to minister in Gateshead. AMIE publicly celebrated her ordination as ‘a historic and joyful occasion’, and declared: ‘Her calling reflects the rich biblical vision of ministry in which men and women, gifted by the Holy Spirit, are set apart to serve Christ and his church through faithful word ministry, prayer and servant-hearted leadership.’ They delighted in her ordination as ‘a clear and hopeful declaration of what women and men are called and enabled to do in Christ’, and as ‘a visible reminder that the gospel calls all God’s people into meaningful, word-centred and prayerful service.’ Although AMIE reserves the presbyterate and episcopate for men, they nonetheless publicly proclaim their hope that ‘many more’ women will step forward to be ordained as deacons.[5] No equivalent encouragement to women has yet been heard from those involved in the REACH ordinations.

The difficulties run much deeper, of course. Complementarian evangelicals are only one part of the wider Alliance, a Church of England resistance movement which brings together disparate networks of campaigners, both evangelical and catholic, against the House of Bishops’ progressive trajectory. Most Alliance supporters are egalitarian in their theology of men and women in ministry. For any alternative ordination pathway to have wider credibility across the whole Alliance, it will need to open the presbyterate to women and men equally, not just the diaconate. A viable solution to these internal Alliance divisions has not yet been brokered.

(iii) English solutions

A third obvious limitation of the REACH ordinations is the geographical distance between England and South Africa. Bishop Morrison is an energetic church-planter, with his hands full leading a growing multiracial congregation at Christ Church, Nokuphila, on the edge of Tembisa township. Given the demands of ministry at home, he flew in from Johannesburg on the day of the ordinations and flew home the following evening – a new style of ‘flying bishop’. But it is difficult to have oversight of 14 deacons from a distance of over 5,000 miles. Flying visits are not sustainable. Morrison is therefore aiming to appoint formal REACH representatives in England, to act as his delegates, which will help as a temporary measure. But in the long term, English problems need English solutions.

In an episcopal church, English solutions require English bishops. Although evangelical dissidents believe the House of Bishops crossed a ‘red line’ by commending the Prayers of Love and Faith, not all members of the House supported that commendation. According to the official summary from December 2023, there were 24 votes in favour, with 11 against and 3 abstentions. Among those who resisted the proposals was Paul Butler (Bishop of Durham) who argued that ‘the House needed to offer proposals for formal structural pastoral provision swiftly to maintain unity’.[6] Two years later, as the House of Bishops debated its final statement bringing the Living in Love and Faith project to an end, Andrew Watson (Bishop of Guildford) wanted them to acknowledge publicly that their commendation of the liturgical resources had been ‘by a majority – not unanimously’.[7]

The episcopal minority who refused to commend the Prayers of Love and Faith – alongside those who have joined the House of Bishops since December 2023 and are willing to dissociate themselves from that commendation – are therefore in a crucial position. With a little imagination, they would be able to provide English solutions to the alternative ordination crisis and thus negate the need for REACH’s intervention. It was initially anticipated that the seven deacons ordained by REACH in 2025 would be ordained as presbyters in 2026, but all have paused the process. This is not a sign of cold feet, but of their desire to wait in hope for Church of England bishops to come to their aid. It is possible for sympathetic Church of England bishops to regularise their ministries, ordain them to the presbyterate, offer them licences, and thus integrate them properly into Church of England ministry, for the sake of the unity of the church. Although the House of Bishops, as a body, has declined to discuss structural arrangements, individual bishops have significant powers to enable solutions on their own authority.

The alternative pathway to ordination via the Leaders’ Training Course, ReNew Alternative Selection Panel, and REACH diaconate is not designed to tempt Anglican ordinands away from the Church of England but, on the contrary, to keep them within the Church of England’s orbit. For those who want a new denomination and a clean break from the Church of England, the Anglican Mission in England is available and is recruiting. These new deacons view themselves as Church of England loyalists who are glad to receive ordination by REACH as a last resort and an emergency provision, but are looking to Church of England bishops to step forward with a better solution. There are many like them queuing up in the ordination pipeline.

Professor Andrew Atherstone is a member of the Church of England’s General Synod. His latest book is Archbishop Sarah Mullally (Hodder & Stoughton, 2026).

[1] Andrew Atherstone, ‘Alternative Anglican Ordinations: Seven South African Deacons’, Law & Religion UK (25 June 2025).

[2] ‘Proclamation Trust Training Courses’, www.proctrust.org.uk/courses.

[3] ‘ReNew Alternative Selection Panels’, renewconference.org.uk/events/alternative-selection-pathway

[4] Michael Marshall, Church at the Crossroads: Lambeth 1988 (London, 1988), p. 5.

[5] Bishop Tim Davies, ‘AMIE Vocational Diaconate’ (May 2026), www.anglicanmissioninengland.org.

[6] House of Bishops (12 December 2023): Summary of Actions and Decisions.

[7] House of Bishops (16 December 2025): Minutes.

**********

Cite this article as: Andrew Atherstone, “More alternative Anglican ordinations” in Law & Religion UK, 15 June 2026, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2026/06/15/more-alternative-anglican-ordinations/

On 22 May, the Supreme Court granted a group of independent Christian schools, parents and pupils permission to appeal the judgment in R (BYL & Anor) v Chancellor of the Exchequer & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 170, on the Government’s decision to impose VAT on independent school fees. The ground of appeal is whether the policy strikes a fair balance between its stated objectives and its consequences for affected schools, parents and children. The appellants argue that the policy “disproportionately impacts Christian schools and the families who choose them, particularly those of modest means”.

More on the Places of Worship Renewal Fund

In reply to a question from Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down, SDLP) as to whether VAT reimbursements are available under the Places of Worship Renewal Fund, Ian Murray, Minister of State at DCMS, said this:

“The new Places of Worship Renewal Fund is a capital grant scheme which will operate in England only as Heritage is a devolved matter. Where capital grants have been awarded, VAT on eligible works and costs will be rebated where it is not otherwise reclaimable.”

In reply to a question from Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton, LibDem) about the adequacy of the £92 million allocated for the Fund, he said this:

“Given the current fiscal climate, it is essential that Government support is targeted towards the areas where it can have the greatest impact, and where it is needed most. The new Places of Worship Renewal Fund (£92 million over four years) will provide grants from £10,000 to £1,000,000 to support urgent structural repairs, physical access improvements or the installation of new facilities to expand community use. Priority will be given to projects in areas of England with the highest levels of deprivation and need for investment.” [emphasis added].

Blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Northern Ireland

On 9 June, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) voted 57 to 24 in favour of repealing blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland. Alliance MLA Connie Egan tabled the amendment to the Justice Bill, which is now set to repeal the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Northern Ireland. The vote took place during the Justice Bill’s consideration stage, in which MLAs debate the Bill in detail and vote on proposed changes. By voting for Ms Egan’s amendment, they agreed to add the repeal of blasphemy laws to the Bill.

The Justice Bill must still pass its further consideration stage, where MLAs can make more changes, and then its final stage, where MLAs vote on the Bill as a whole. If the Bill passes, it will go through final legal checks before receiving Royal Assent and becoming an Act. [With acknowledgements to Humanists UK.]

Coastal erosion threatens historic burial site

The Guardian reports that a mass grave for 119 drowned sailors from HMS Invincible, which sank off the Norfolk coast in 1801, could be exhumed to avoid their remains being exposed by coastal erosion. The recovered bodies were buried at St Mary’s, Happisburgh, in the nearest village to the shipwreck, but the graveyard is expected to be destroyed by coastal erosion in the coming decades. The mass grave was unmarked until 1998, when a stone was placed above it that includes the biblical inscription: “And the sea gave up the dead that were in it.”

Human bones were exposed at the cliffside graveyard at St Mary’s, Whitby as the result of a landslide, and the fear is that something similar may happen at Happisburgh. North Norfolk District Council has agreed to conduct a ground-penetrating radar survey of the graveyard later this summer to pinpoint the exact location of the mass grave for a possible exhumation.

The exhumation and reburial of a large number of remains is not unknown for large infrastructure projects and likewise the reburial of Scottish soldiers from a mass grave near Durham Cathedral. However, in addition to the approval of the consistory court for the exhumation and associated disruption of the churchyard, reburial at sea would also have to satisfy the exacting requirements of the Marine Maritime Organization. [With thanks to Michael Ainsworth.]

Pentagon drops 180 religious groups from “recognised faith” list

On 8 June, the Religion Media Centre reported that the US Department of Defense had announced a reduction in the number of religious affiliations recognised by chaplains as they plan their service. According to the website Military.com, the new list of 31 is down from more than 200, and no longer includes Atheists, Asatru, Deists, Druids, Eckankar, Heathens, Humanists, Magick, New Age churches, Pagan, Rosicrucianism, Shaman, Spiritualists, Troth, Unitarian Universalists and various Wiccans.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, which was listed separately from those labelled “Christian”, is now clearly identified as a Christian Church; the Department stated that there had been a mistake in labelling. The list does not make claims on the legitimacy of faiths but seeks to assist chaplains providing spiritual care.

Inappropriate gavels (yet again)

On 8 June, Legal Cheek reported Bar regulator in gavel blunder: “It appears the  Bar Standards Board has fallen foul of the misconception that our legal system features tiny auctioneer-style hammers, with one cropping up in a seminar put on by the regulator”. As readers will appreciate: “There are entire websites dedicated to identifying and calling out the incorrect representation of, or use of gavels within the UK judiciary. Wigs yes, gavels no”.  Following an email to the BSB “to hammer home the point”, a spokesperson confirmed it will be removed.

•  Alex Davies, Lexology: Cohabitation reform: a long-overdue shift in the law or an attack on family wealth?: more on the Government’s reasons for the consultation here.
• Diocese of Truro: Complexity of Corker Memorial Highlighted in Presentation: “The memorial, dedicated to a trader of enslaved people, has attracted significant public attention and remains a source of strong and differing views within the community”.

And finally…

Inspired (!!!) by the Church of England’s World Cup prayer, the Beaker Folk of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (but not Epsom) have released their own. For the benefit of our readers (and as a quid pro quo for the continued links to L&RUK posts in the sidebar of their posts), we are delighted to share it with you here.

This present post reviews a recent case – Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1 – in which Samuel Ch. observed:

“[7] Applications for grave space reservation are often made without difficulty. However, difficulty may arise where the churchyard has only a limited number of grave spaces remaining. In such cases, the relevant law was summarised by Chancellor Hodge KC in Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2. That decision sets out the principles to be applied where, as in this case, there is a petition to reserve grave space, but only limited space remaining within the churchyard for future burials”[1].

In Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1, the Chancellor refused Mrs Denise Blundell’s application to reserve a grave space for herself and her husband in the churchyard of St Botolph. Mrs Blundell’s mother and sister are buried there, and she argued that being buried near her sister was of profound emotional importance. The aspect of reservation not covered elsewhere is the certification of the estimate underpinning the remaining time for burials. The Chancellor stated [emphasis added]:

[2]. The petition identifies the present rate of burials as seven a year, and that only 25 grave spaces presently remain available. The population of Newbold-on- Avon itself is said to be 1,500 but when combined with the other area covered by the Benefice, that figure becomes 6,000. I must decide whether to grant the application despite the space available in the Churchyard likely to be used up in less than four years.

5. (i) [The Incumbent] did sign the petition on 9th September 2025 in the section where the consent […] must be given. Below that signature the Incumbent and both Churchwardens signed the declaration: “We the undersigned, being the Incumbent and Churchwardens of the Parish of Newbold-on-Avon in the Diocese of Coventry DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in our opinion, having regard to the average yearly number of burials in the churchyard of St Botolph, Newbold-on-Avon, aforesaid, the granting of a Faculty to the aforementioned Petitioner(s) will not be detrimental to the rights of the Parishioners”

(ii) Given the contents of paragraph 2 of this judgment, that declaration should never have been signed. It is abundantly clear that to grant this Faculty to a non-parishioner, and someone not on the electoral roll nor with any specific connection with the worshipping community, would be detrimental to the rights of Parishioners, as set out in the following description of the law that applies to reservation of grave spaces.

(iii) All Incumbents and Churchwardens should take care to read the declaration, and to understand the law pertaining to the situation, before signing a document for submission to the Court. What should happen in such circumstances as apply here is the incumbent and Churchwardens decline to make the formal declaration, but then put in writing any reason why they would, nonetheless, support the particular petition. Acting pragmatically, I shall regard the signed declaration in this case as being an indication that the Incumbent and Churchwardens support the petition.

Applying established ecclesiastical case law, the Chancellor held that where burial space is limited, grave reservations should only be granted in exceptional circumstances because they may prejudice the rights of parishioners who have a legal entitlement to burial. The petitioner bore the burden of proving such exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor found that the emotional bond and mutual promises between Mrs Blundell and her sister, while sincere and wedeeply felt, were not “markedly out of the ordinary” and did not justify reserving a space. The petition was therefore dismissed.

[1] The St. Mary, Haversham judgment concerned a churchyard where it was estimated that the remaining space would only be sufficient for the parish’s needs for another 5 years, so longer than in the current case. Referring back (at [8] in St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon) to his own decision in Re St. Mary Thame [2022] ECC Oxf 2 [also at (2023) 25 Ecc LJ 114] Chancellor Hodge, KC, identified the following, non-exhaustive propositions:

“(1) The reservation of a grave space is entirely within the discretion of the consistory court, to be exercised having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.

(2) The court will be more inclined to grant a faculty to a petitioner with the right to be buried in the churchyard than to one without such an entitlement. Those who have such a right are the persons living within the parish, and those on the electoral roll of the parish church.

(3) The court may nevertheless grant a faculty to a petitioner with no right to be buried in the churchyard where they can demonstrate a personal, or a substantial family, connection to the church and/or its churchyard, or some other good and sufficient reason to be buried there.

(4) Where there is sufficient space within the churchyard, and the incumbent minister gives [his/her] consent, the court may well grant a faculty to such a petitioner, unless the Parochial Church Council have a policy of opposing the reservation of grave spaces.

(5) Such a policy cannot be conclusive, and it cannot remove the court’s overarching discretion; but where the PCC have adopted a policy that is considered, reasonable and fair, the court will only be justified in departing from that policy in exceptional circumstances; and anyone seeking to reserve a grave space in the face of such a policy will need to show that their case is markedly out of the ordinary.

(6) Where, however, the remaining space within the churchyard is limited, then a faculty will not normally be granted, and the petitioner will have to demonstrate sufficient justification for the court to take the exceptional course of allowing a reservation in such circumstances, because of the risk that such a reservation will prejudice the rights of those parishioners or worshippers who would otherwise be entitled to be buried in the churchyard.

(7) Even where such a justification is demonstrated, it will not usually be right to extend the duration of the faculty beyond the period for which the churchyard is likely to have space for burials, unless there are exceptional circumstances (including evidence of a particularly strong connection to the church and/or the churchyard) in favour of doing so.

(8) Should a faculty for a grave space reservation be granted for a limited duration, it remains open to the petitioner to apply for an extension of the period of its validity. Whether or not any extension is to be granted will depend upon the prevailing circumstances, including: (1) the petitioner’s personal circumstances; (2) whether arrangements have been made to provide additional space for burials, whether by the acquisition of further land, or the re-use of parts of the churchyard, or otherwise; (3) the views of the incumbent minister; and (4) any current policy of the PCC towards the reservation of grave spaces.”

The Defense Department recently created a controversy by revising its list of religious affiliation codes for service members and failing to designate the LDS Church as Christian. After objections, DOD removed the Christian designation from the list altogether. In this Legal Spirits Short Take, Center Director Mark Movsesian explains how the episode reveals a deeper problem of liberalism in a religiously diverse society: government must frequently classify religion, but no classification can be completely neutral. Listen in!

The post Legal Spirits 078: A Short Take on Religion in the Military appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

The celebrated singer and song-writer Ms Marianne Faithfull died in London on 30 January 2025 at the age of 78, and is buried at St Mary’s Church, Aldworth, Berkshire. By an application dated 20 March 2026, Ms Faithfull’s adult son, Mr Nicholas Dunbar, sought a faculty for a memorial to commemorate his late mother which falls outside the Churchyard Regulations for the Diocese of Oxford (2016). Nevertheless, Hodge Ch. noted:

“[1]…The design of the proposed headstone is attractive and well thought through. It will perform the three-fold function of honouring the late Marianne Faithfull, comforting those she has left behind, and informing posterity about her spirituality and creativity, giving vivid expression to her role as a celebrated performance artist. This proposed memorial will serve as a lasting adornment to this churchyard. Its approval reflects this diocese’s willingness to welcome well-conceived and attractive commemorative memorials in its churchyards”.

Details of the headstone are outlined at [2] and images are included at the end of the judgment. The applicant’s special reasons for wanting this particular memorial are as follows:

“My mother was a world-renowned recording artist and songwriter with strong connections to Aldworth. We wish to convey this on the back of the gravestone, with an extract from one of her final songs with her carved signature beneath it. The lyric expresses her spirituality as she returned to the Christian faith in her final years, with the signature expressing her creativity.”

The proposed headstone fell outwith the diocesan Churchyard Regulations because it included Ms Faithfull’s signature in cursive script on the reverse, together with a short extract from one of her final songs. Having viewed samples of the proposed material, and with the design height at three foot six inches, the PCC “[was] content to ascribe support for this memorial”. Furthermore, the vicar commented[3]:

“The PCC have been delighted how much cooperation we have received from the applicant in addressing any queries and concerns, even to the point of arranging samples of material. It has been very much appreciated. The PCC feels that the uniqueness of the application reflects the significance of the person it memorialises (Marianne Faithfull) and has been carefully designed to be in keeping with the church surroundings”.

By its Notification of Advice dated 30 April 2026, the Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposal for approval by the court without any comments or provisos. With regard to the Diocesan Churchyard Regulations, the Chancellor commented that the applicant’s proposed memorial falls outside their ambit since Regulation 43 provides that: “Cursive script (that is, a script which gives the appearance of having been written in a running hand) is not permitted“.

However, interestingly, no similar provision appears within the model form of churchyard regulations recently proposed in a report by a Working Party of the Ecclesiastical Judges’ Association; this has been looking at the churchyard regulations that apply in different dioceses  with a view to seeking to introduce a greater measure of uniformity across the Northern and Southern Provinces of York and Canterbury. He suggested:

“this suggests either that there is nothing inherently objectionable in the adoption of a cursive script, or that this issue was not considered by the Working Party”.

The court reviewed the law governing memorials that do not comply with churchyard regulations, noting that the correct approach is a merits-based assessment rather than requiring exceptional circumstances. Non-compliance with regulations is a relevant factor but is not, by itself, a reason to refuse a faculty. Also, the model regulations prohibit lettering otherwise than on the principal face of the inscription plate, although for those in the Diocese of Oxford, there is nothing that prohibits lettering on the reverse of a memorial.

With regard to the Legal Test:

[7]. Until June 2021, ecclesiastical case law had disclosed two competing approaches to applications for a faculty where there was non-compliance with the relevant Churchyard Regulations: one required ‘exceptional’, ‘powerful’ or ‘substantial’ reasons for departing from the Regulations; the other simply asked whether the proposed memorial was ‘suitable’. In Re St Giles, Exhall [2021] EACC 1 … the Arches Court of Canterbury […] considered these different approaches and how churchyard regulations should be used in decision-making. At paragraph 11.8, the Arches Court considered the right approach to be a ‘merits-based’ one:

“Clearly, any Regulations in place for the parish or diocese concerned will be part of a matrix of relevant considerations, but we do not think that consideration of a faculty petition should start with a presumption against allowing a memorial outside the parameters of the Regulations …”

The Arches Court cited with approval the approach articulated in a number of first-instance judgments[*], summarized in [8] to [10]. On the use of cursive script for the name of Marianne Faithfull on the reverse face of the proposed headstone, the Chancellor had no doubt that this was desirable. It would appear immediately below a short extract from what […] was one of Ms Faithfull’s final songs; Regulation 38 permits an inscription provided “it is simple, reverent and not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England”. Subject to that overarching limitation, by Regulation 39, an inscription may include quotations “from literary sources”, which this clearly was.

Noting the minister minister recorded that the PCC “feels that the uniqueness of the application reflects the significance of the person it memorialises (Marianne Faithfull) and has been carefully designed to be in keeping with the church surroundings”, he concluded “[i]n such circumstances, it is my judgment that the court should unhesitatingly defer to the reasoned views of the PCC”`.

A faculty was granted, subject to conditions[12].

[*] Re St. Mary Great Chart [2022] ECC Can 2; Re Christ Church, Harwood [2002] 1 WLR 2055; Re St Giles, Exhall [2021] EACC 1, [2021] PTSR 1622.

Why the consultation on cohabitation rights is to be welcomed

In 2021, I published a book entitled Religion and Marriage Law: The Need for Reform. Most of that book focused on the need to modernise the law on how to get married but the penultimate chapter focused on cohabitation rights. That chapter might be seen as an afterthought. But, as I pointed out in the introduction to that chapter, ‘it was in many ways the most important’ of the reform proposals I was advocating. The new Government consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships, is to be welcomed, therefore, since it includes proposals to give cohabitation rights on separation and death alongside modernising the law on financial remedies on divorce.

Why cohabitation rights matter 

From a religious perspective, the cohabitation rights proposed in A Fairer End to Relationships may cause concern for some in terms of seemingly undermining the status of marriage. Such fears are ill-founded. Under these proposals, the rights afforded to cohabitants will still differ and be less than those enjoyed by married couples and civil partners. Moreover, giving cohabitating couples in England and Wales the kind of rights that they enjoy in many other jurisdictions would make a major difference to the issue of what have been called ‘unregistered religious marriages’, ‘religious only marriages’ or ‘non-qualifying ceremonies’. These exist where the couple undergo a wedding ceremony that does not comply with the Marriage Act 1949. Religious marriages are recognised under the Act but in relation to religious weddings other than Church of England, Quaker and Jewish ceremonies the ceremony must take place in a registered place of religious worship in order to be legally binding. It therefore excludes religions that do not have such buildings or do not have a tradition of getting married in such buildings. Though the couple are married in the eyes of their faith, they are not married in the eyes of the law.

There are all sorts of reasons why couples might have unregistered religious marriages: it may be the choice of the parties (in some communities, religious marriages effectively allow the couple to date, to be together without a chaperone), it may be because the parties are unsure of the law or it might be because it is difficult or impossible for a religious ceremony reflecting their beliefs to be held in a way that is compatible with marriage law requirements. What is clear is that couples who are in such relationships have no legal redress on relationship breakdown on the basis of their relationship (as opposed in relation to property or children) and this does lead to hardship, especially where one or both of the parties are unaware of this.

This is perhaps epitomised by the facts that led to the case of HM Attorney General v Akhter & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 122. In 1998, Nasreen Akhter and Mohammed Shabaz Khan had a nikah ceremony. They intended to register the marriage under civil law but never got around to it and indeed as time went on Khan refused to register it. They had four children together and while they lived in Dubai between 2005 and 2011 they were considered by the authorities there to be validly married. After 18 years and back in the UK, the relationship broke down in 2016 and Akhter issued a petition for divorce from Khan. At first instance, Mr Justice Williams took a ‘holistic’ view to conclude that this should be treated as a void marriage and so entitled to legal redress. The Attorney General appealed and the Court of Appeal rejected such creativity holding that there was no ceremony under the Marriage Act. Such a ‘non-qualifying ceremony’ was outside the scope of marriage and divorce legislation. Akhter and Khan were cohabitants and denied any legal redress on grounds of relationship status.

This case highlighted the lack of redress for those who are in unregistered religious marriages either where this is unwitting on the part of one or both of the parties or where this is not agreed by one of the parties (such as in this case where the husband promised that they would comply with marriage registration laws at a later date). The fact that such couples have no redress under English law has often meant that they seek a remedy instead from religious courts, tribunals or councils. Numerous empirical studies have shown that a number of the marital status cases decided by such bodies concern couples who are not married under English law. And in such cases, these religious authorities are the only place that couples can turn to, which is problematic to say the least.

Providing some rights to cohabitants on relationship breakdown would provide some redress. It would not recognise their marriage – and that is why reform of the law on cohabitation is needed alongside reform of the law on getting married (a consultation on that is promised by the government before the summer recess). But it would mean that claimants like Akhter would receive some redress from English law – and that there would always be the option of such redress in addition to going to a religious court, tribunal or councils. Such bodies would then always be a form of alternative dispute resolution rather than the only option as they presently are.

What is being proposed? 

That penultimate chapter in Religion and Marriage Law: The Need for Reform surveyed the various approaches taken to cohabitation rights on separation neighbouring jurisdictions as well as the models proposed by the Law Commission and under private member Bills. It concluded that these various approaches actually had much in common. Three main characteristics of a scheme were distilled and these three characteristics can also be found in the proposals found in A Fairer End to Relationships.

The first characteristic is that the scheme would apply if the couple meet the definition of being cohabitants. Some proposals provided more details as to what would be considered as part of the definition of the term cohabitants than others but they tended to agree that having a child together or living together for a certain amount of time was required. This is reflected in the proposals in A Fairer End to Relationships. It is proposed that the new system would apply ‘where two people are living together as a couple in an enduring family relationship’. Courts would determine this using ‘a non-exhaustive checklist of factors’. Both of the parties would need to be over 18 and cannot be relatives or those who are married or in a civil partnership (who would have access to the separation rights available there). The system would be restricted to couples who have been living together for three years or have had a child together. Individuals would need to make an application within two years of separation for the claim to be considered by a court. These requirements largely follow the Law Commission’s 2007 recommendations.

The second characteristic is that the statutory scheme will apply to cohabitants on separation provided that they have not opted-out. The various proposals often prescribed what form that the opt out would need to take to be effective. This opt out rather than opt in requirement would ensure that cohabitation rights are afforded to couples who are choosing to cohabit thinking that they will accrue marriage-like legal rights as well as those where there is an intention to marry but the couple do not get around to it. The proposals in A Fairer End to Relationships follow such an opt-out approach, suggesting statutory safeguards based on the Law Commission’s recommendations in its 2014 Report, Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements, on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements: in short, a valid contract, made by deed, agreed after each party has received disclosure of material information about the other party’s financial situation and after each party has received independent legal advice.

The third and final characteristic is that the scheme would allow a cohabitant to seek a remedy on separation if certain circumstances are met. Here, the various proposals differed with Lord Lester’s Cohabitation Bill simply stating that the court could make a financial order if ‘having regard to all the circumstances, the court considers that it is just and equitable to make an order’. The other proposals were not broad but instead provided slightly different lists of factors for the court to take into account. A Fairer End to Relationships states that the Government has decided against the ‘compensation-based’ approach proposed by the Law Commission and proposes instead a ‘needs-based’ approach that follows the proposals in respect of divorce but makes several modifications to underline the differences between marriage (and civil partnership) as opposed to cohabitation. Courts would not have the same discretion to meet needs as they have in divorce cases. In assessing needs in cohabitation cases, a two-stage approach would be taken: beginning with children’s needs and followed by the individual’s own financial needs. There would be no equivalent of the third stage proposed for divorce cases that would involve consideration of discretionary needs (that is, the consideration of ‘lifestyle luxuries’). A list of factors would be considered by the court when deciding what is a fair ‘needs-based’ assessment: earning capacity; financial resources of each individual; any physical or mental disability; age; and length of relationship. Where the qualifying criteria is met, it is proposed that courts would have access to a broad set of remedies ‘which reflect what is available on divorce, including property adjustment orders, lump sum orders and pension sharing orders’. The court would also have access to maintenance orders, ‘although the government proposes these would only be available in exceptional circumstances’.

Concluding thoughts

As with any consultation, there is a debate to be had in relation to the details and in particular to the similarities and differences between the frameworks that would apply to the end of cohabiting relationships compared to the end of marriages and civil partnerships. Yet, overall, the need for such reform is clear. Some carefully defined cohabitation rights on separation are needed not only because of the huge numbers of people in such relationships generally who currently lack redress (often unwittingly), but also because of the problem of unregistered religious marriages in particular. As I have argued in Religion and Marriage Law: The Need for Reform and subsequent publications, there is a need for reform of both of the law on getting married and of cohabitation rights. These two reforms would complement each other. Reform of the law on getting married will inevitably not recognise all forms of relationship and so without cohabitation rights on separation, some couples will be denied protection, including some parties who did not wittingly and voluntarily assent to this. The introduction of cohabitation rights alone would not recognise religious weddings that cannot meet the legal requirements as marriages (with all the rights that this would bring). Both are needed. Reform of the law on getting married would extend the types of weddings that are legally recognised, removing the discrimination found in the archaic legal framework, while cohabitation rights on separation would provide a back-stop protection for those whose marriages continue not to be recognised by the State. It is to be hoped that the promised consultation on reforming the law on getting married will shortly follow A Fairer End to Relationships and that both will quickly lead to legislation. Indeed, it would make sense for the changes to appear in the same bill, bringing the law on adult intimate relationships fully into the twenty-first century.

The consultation is open now and runs until 14 August.

Thanks to Professor Sharon Thompson for her comments on a draft of this post. All errors remain my own.

Russell Sandberg

Cite this article as: Russell Sandberg, “Consultation on cohabitation rights: a welcome development” in Law & Religion UK, 8 June 2026, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2026/06/08/consultation-on-cohabitation-rights-a-welcome-development/.

The Government has accepted Lord Mann’s recommendations on tackling antisemitism in the NHS. In the wake of a series of attacks on the Jewish community, including intimidation and abuse within the NHS, in October 2025 the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Mann to lead an urgent review into how the NHS and its regulatory system recognises, reports and tackles antisemitism and other forms of racism.

The results of the review have now been published, with a comprehensive set of recommendations to strengthen accountability, to improve reporting and investigation processes, and to embed an anti-racist culture across the health system, better to protect patients and staff from discrimination and abuse. Lord Mann:f

• sets out recommendations to tackle “routine ostracism” of Jewish people in the NHS, including stronger accountability and mandatory training;
• reemphasises the role of NHS employers as the first line of defence against racism and discrimination for patients and staff;
• recommends that NHS employers should be required to meet new staff standards and complete mandatory anti-racism training to tackle antisemitism; and
• calls upon the Government to make it clear that all racism in the NHS is abhorrent.

A specific recommendation is to prohibit staff from wearing “political symbols”.

The Government says that it is clear that all racism in the NHS is abhorrent, and NHS employers are the first line of defence and must take urgent action. With 16% of Muslim staff and 20% of Black and minority ethnic staff also reporting discrimination in the last year, and it believes that the reforms will benefit everyone who experiences hatred or abuse in the health service. Secretary of State for Health, James Murray, said:

“The NHS was built on the principle that everyone should be treated equally and with respect. Racism and discrimination betray everything the NHS stands for and its ability to provide safe, world-class care. Lord John Mann has made a series of robust and practical recommendations which we are accepting.”

A fairer end to relationships

The Government has launched a consultation on A fairer end to relationships. The consultation covers three discrete but linked areas:

• financial remedies on divorce and dissolution;
• financial provision for cohabitants on separation; and
• inheritance provision for cohabitants on death.

It invites views on:

• “a ‘codification-plus’ model of reform, which would bring settled case law principles, such as those of ‘needs’ and ‘sharing’, into statutory form”;
• further targeted reforms, including introducing qualifying nuptial agreements which would enable couples to make binding financial arrangements in advance of divorce or dissolution;
• introducing a statutory framework of rights and protections for eligible cohabitants at the point of separation; and
• proposals to modernise the law affecting cohabitants on intestacy and on access to financial provision from a deceased partner’s estate.

The accompanying press release explains that the proposals support the Government’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen the rights and protections for women in cohabiting relationships”. The consultation closes on 14 August.

A longer analysis by Professor Russell Sandberg, Why the consultation on cohabitation rights is to be welcomed, will be posted early next week.

Other Lords Spiritual??

In a rather strange written question, Lord Patten (Con) asked HMG “why leaders of faith groups such as Jewish, Muslim and Roman Catholic leaders in the House of Lords are not considered as Lords Spiritual”.

To which Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, replied on Tuesday (carefully avoiding the obvious answer, “Because they aren’t”) as follows:

“The presence of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords reflects the constitutional position of the Church of England as the established Church and the Sovereign as the Supreme Governor of the Church. The Government believes the House of Lords benefits from having a membership with a wide and diverse range of backgrounds including faith and religion.”

MPs to debate e-petition after lack of progress with assisted dying bill

The Hansard Society reports that, tomorrow, MPs will debate an e-petition calling on the Government to ensure that bills supported by MPs and the public have sufficient time to complete their passage through Parliament. The petition, e-petition 752673, which was published on 4 February 2026, has attracted more than 115,000 signatures. It was prompted by concerns that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – commonly known as the assisted dying bill – ran out of parliamentary time after more than 1,000 amendments were tabled in the House of Lords. The petition will be debated in Westminster Hall at 4:30 pm on Monday, 8 June.

The Society notes that whatever one’s view of assisted dying, questions remain about whether and how the Bill could be re-introduced in the new parliamentary session. Its recent briefing examines whether the Parliament Act could be used to secure its enactment. It explores the constitutional issues involved, reviews previous uses of the Act, and considers the procedural lessons they offer for the future of the Bill.

Freedom of assembly and Falun Gong

In Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH v Serbia [2026] ECHR 105, the Third Section held that the Serbian Government had violated Article 11 ECHR (freedom of assembly) when it banned a demonstration to protest against the Chinese persecution of Falun Gong that had been planned to coincide with the visit of the President of China to Serbia.

It noted at [46] that the ECtHR requires that domestic law provide for “adequate and effective legal safeguards against arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of the discretion left to the executive” and that “This ‘judicial review’ must make it possible to obtain an assessment of the proportionality and necessity of the impugned restriction” in accordance with Article 11(2). In the present dispute, there was no evidence in the case file that the relevant Serbian authorities had carried out any specific security assessments before deciding to prohibit the public gatherings planned by the applicant society [72] and:

“Even if there had been a genuine risk of violent confrontation between the protestors and counter‑protestors, this, in and of itself, should not have resulted in the decisions to prohibit the planned public gatherings, without the authorities having first complied with their positive obligation to try to ensure the peaceful conduct of the planned events and the safety of all persons concerned”… [73].

There had therefore been a violation of Article 11 and of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 11. [With thanks to Religion Clause.]

The rule of law and why it matters: Key Stage 1

The Council of Europe has published an explainer on the importance of the Rule of Law. Obviously, no regular or even occasional reader of this blog needs any such explanation; unfortunately, however, many others clearly do.

News from the auction houses

As a segue to Shirani Herbert’s guest post, Sale of church treasures: Re St Peter, Little Budworth, we were informed by David Turner KC that the painting in question, “The Good Shepherd” by William Dyce (1806–1864), was sold at Bonhams on 25 March 2026 for £267,100 inc. premium.

This week, there have been stories on the movement of artwork in the opposite direction; the BBC reported that a hatchment stolen from St Leonard’s Church, Flamstead, Hertfordshire, had been identified  and will be unveiled on 4 June as part of the Flamstead Arts Festival. There are similarities with the hatchment from St Margaret’s Church on the Felbrigg estate in Norfolk, stolen in 1993 but eventually returned by the Essex Police Rural Engagement Team.

Quick links

• Jasjit Singh, The Conversation: Who can carry a kirpan in the UK? Religion, law and the question of risk.

The Report makes recommendations to the UK Government and the Welsh Government on a future-proof framework to enable the regulation of new funerary methods. The Commission has not recommended the introduction of any specific new funerary method; that will be a matter for the respective Governments.

Key recommendations include:

• A power for the Secretary of State (in relation to England) and the Welsh Ministers (in relation to Wales) to make regulations approving the use of individual new funerary methods and setting out how they should be carried out.
• A power to make regulations enabling trials of new funerary methods to be authorised.
• A requirement for the regulation-maker to have regard to the importance of following principles:
  • Treating humans with dignity
  • Protecting the environment
  • Protecting public health and public safety.
• A new criminal offence of carrying out a new funerary method that has not been regulated under the power, other than in accordance with authorisation given for a trial, which will clarify the law in this area.
• A power to create new offences in secondary legislation of carrying out regulated new funerary methods in contravention of legislation.
• A requirement to include in regulations:
  • a requirement for the use of a new funerary method on the body of a deceased person to be registered; and
  • details of how and by whom this registration must be carried out
• A requirement to include in regulations provision about the inspection of facilities.
• Amendments to primary legislation governing death registration so that the requirements are broadly the same for a regulated new funerary method, and for new funerary methods carried out in an authorised trial, as for burial and cremation.

This Report has been laid in the Westminster Parliament and the Senedd. It includes two draft Bills, one for England and one for Wales.

The petition concerns a memorial which was unlawfully introduced into the churchyard of All Saints, Broughton on a date unknown in December 2025 [1]. It was brought in the name of Mrs Janet Watson, widow of Mr Ian Watson over whose grave the memorial was erected, although the de facto petitioner was Ms Susan Smith trading as Brook Smiths Funeral Directors in Skipton [2].

Ms Smith filed a petition and made written representations to the Court in the form of an email dated 29 January 2026. In her email she “admits that the headstone should not have been fixed without [the incumbent, the Rev Findlow’s] permission” [4]. Hill Ch. noted that several issues needed to be addressed regarding the grant of a confirmatory faculty in these circumstances, including:

• the reason why works were undertaken without prior permission and therefore unlawfully;
• the likelihood of a repetition of the unlawful works in the future; and
• whether permission would have been forthcoming had permission been sought prospectively[5].

The Chancellor was unconvinced that Ms Smith was unaware of the illegality of her actions, and her justification — wanting the bereaved widow to see the memorial before Christmas — was rejected as unreasonable; her conduct was described as ill-thought and somewhat reckless, causing avoidable distress. He could find no objective and reasonable justification for Ms Smith causing or permitting the headstone to be introduced without authority[9].

The Chancellor was concerned about a risk of repetition due to the funeral director’s poor understanding of the faculty jurisdiction. Since Ms Smith elected not to adduce evidence in reply to the statement of the incumbent, he accepted as unchallenged Rev Findlow’s evidence that the headstone did not comply with the Churchyards Regulations, particularly regarding height and potential safety concerns, with similar issues noted in two other installations handled by the same funeral director.

Whilst the height issue might be satisfied after settlement of the grave had taken place, the extension of the court’s consideration to the other installations raised further concerns. These two other headstones had been introduced into the churchyard by Ms Smith in the recent past (Cameron and Hale) and photographic evidence indicated that the latter was already leaning forward. Consequently, the Court could not be satisfied that the Watson, Cameron and Hale headstones had been safely erected, a concern is heightened by Ms Smith’s choice not to challenge or respond to Mr Findlow’s evidence on this[14].

The Chancellor concluded that convening a hearing or at least a site visit so the abiding concerns could be fully investigated, or directing the Archdeacon to investigate these matters fully, would be unduly costly and disproportionate[15]. However, he did consider that an independent memorial mason should inspect all three headstones (at the expense of Ms Smith) and certify whether they were safe and whether their installation was in accordance with industry standards as recommended by NAMM and BRAMM, including but not limited to BS 8415. In the event that any issues are raised, the matter should be referred to him for further directions[16].

He therefore directed:

• That a confirmatory faculty may issue in respect of the headstone unlawfully erected by Ms Smith over the grave of Mr Ian Watson.
• Such faculty would not issue until:
  (a) an independent memorial mason had certified the safe and competent erection of headstones over the Watson, Cameron and Hale graves. He directed that the Archdeacon to oversee the certification process, the costs of which are to be borne by Ms Smith; and
  (b) the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings are paid in full by Ms Smith.
• In the event that items (a) and (b) are not completed within 28 days, the Watson headstone is to be removed.

The Chancellor declined to ban the funeral director from future work in the diocese, believing she had learned a salutary lesson from these events. However, he reserved the right to revisit his conclusion should the certification process reveal matters of concern [18].

A similar situation existed in Victoria, Australia until the new legislation was passed in November last year. Extracts from the government Press Release announcing the change are reproduced below.

Pet burials in human cemeteries

12 November 2025

Victoria now allows pets to be buried at cemeteries alongside their owners, becoming just the second jurisdiction in Australia to do so. 

It is important to note that the new law is permissive rather than mandatory, and changes provisions relating to public cemeteries rather than what is permissible on private property. Consequently, it does not compromise existing religious and other provisions. Furthermore, the wording “in places of interment” has the potential for a wide interpretation of “alongside their owners”.

As in the UK, there are requirements on the ownership of the land used and the protection of watercourses for all pet burials. Victoria has no state-wide prohibition on home burial of domestic animals, provided environmental and public‑health requirements are met. Under the new provisions, families must complete a funeral permit application including detailed interment details to cemetery managers. In terms of the Cemetery Trust, these include accurate record keeping of position on plot, burial depth, and individual identity of all remains, allowing for respectful and legal management of graves. Any additional cemetery-specific or religious site regulations must be followed, some private cemeteries will have additional restrictions. Documentation and recording are critical to address the previous problem of improper or unrecorded pet interments that threaten disruption.

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.

Churchyards and burials

Churchyard Regulations

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

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).

CFCE Determinations

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.

Links to other posts

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.

This post reviews the current legislation on the burial or scattering of the cremated remains of humans and animals, which includes burial law, provisions on animal by-products and ecclesiastical law. However, there is no single instrument which addresses both. Burying an animal in a church or municipal cemetery, including the placement of an urn in a coffin, is illegal; nevertheless, burial in a pet cemetery on private land or scattering of the ashes is permissible in most cases. A subsequent post will review recent developments in Australia in which the burial of humans and animals may be accommodated.

Burial

An earlier post considered Groundwater pollution from cemeteries (22 March 2017) following the introduction of a new tranche of EA position statements on groundwater protection. The potential contamination of groundwater from burials is a major factor to be considered and Environment Agency Guidance (1 April 2022) indicates that different rules apply to:

• domestic pets;
• pet cemeteries; and livestock and
• wild game.

The EA guidance indicates that permission is not required to bury domestic pets on one’s own land, for which there are no minimum good practice groundwater protection requirements. However, if pets are to be buried in a churchyard or cemetery, it is necessary for it to be registered as a pet cemetery with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, (APHA). In addition, the owners/managers will need to comply with:

• minimum good practice groundwater protection requirements;
• the Animal By-products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013;
• the voluntary code of practice of the Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria.

Examples of pet cemeteries

In January 2010, the Daily Express ran the story Pet Lovers Can be Buried with their Animals which revealed that the village of Stainton by Langworth, near Lincoln, was to become the only place in England where humans could be near their dogs, cats and even hamsters forever.

It stated: “West Lindsey District Council gave permission for the scheme because the local churchyard of St John the Baptist is, like many others in Britain, fast running out of space”. [Clearly, the lack of space aspect of the comment is unrelated to the provision for pet burials in the newly authorized cemetery.] Importantly, however, the Orchard Burial Ground is privately owned, and as such the owner has the option to inter pets, provided other legislative requirements are satisfied. The web site for the cemetery indicated that there are areas where “people, pets or even people with their pets, can be buried”; i.e. separate areas where people can be buried; ashes can be scattered; people and their pets can be buried alongside each other; and for pet burials.

The Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria notes:

“Pet crematoria are controlled under the Animal By-Product Regulations and, in some areas, Waste Management Licensing…Licensing for Pet Crematoria and Cemeteries is only concerned with the operation as a disposal site. There are no regulations controlling how the cremations should be carried out to ensure the correct ashes are collected, for the dignified handling of the animals or to distinguish between ashes going to a normal disposal site or to a specific memorial area. The standards set by the Association are the only ones that provide this distinction”.

Individual cremation

The Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities (FBCA) Code of Cremation Practice states:

“6. Separately Cremated: Each deceased person given to the care of the Cremation Authority shall be cremated separately. Exceptions may be made for instance in the case of mother and baby or twin children providing that the next of kin has made a specific request in this regard”.

This is not the case for the burial of animals, for which both individual cremation, or a communal options may be available.

Scattering of ashes

In view of their essentially inert nature, the scattering of cremation ashes presents few environmental issues, and is permissible providing it is undertaken with the permission of the landowner. However, consistory courts are unwilling to grant a faculty other than placing ashes contained in a buried urn in the grave space or for “strewing” the ashes, i.e. pouring of the ashes directly into the grave or directly onto the ground in the grave before immediately covering them over with earth, rather than “scattering” them broadcast. [See Re Holy Trinity Trowbridge St. Thomas [2025] ECC Sal 1 [Revised], which is further discussed here. Courts are also unwilling to permit the “mingling” or mixing of ashes from more than one source [See Re Hereford Cemetery [2023] ECC Her 1].

Comment

Unlike in most other European jurisdictions, the bereaved family has, by law, a potentially significant role in determining the subsequent treatment of the ashes. Under Regulation 30 Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008, the cremation authority:

“(1)(a) must dispose of the ashes in accordance with the applicant’s instructions for ashes; or (b) in any case where the applicant does not give instructions for ashes […] where “instructions for ashes” means the instructions given on the application form completed by the applicant, or any subsequent written instructions given by the applicant to the cremation authority”. 

Furthermore, The Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008: guidance for funeral directors, (9 September 2024), stresses “Funeral directors must not complete and/or sign the application form on behalf of the applicant. The application form must be completed and signed by the applicant, supported by the funeral director.” [Footnote 3: clarifies: “The applicant for cremation should usually be a near relative or an executor”].

Footnote

At L&RUK we do not give legal advice, or purport to do so. This post summarizes the issues relating to the burial of pets. For specific queries on the application of the legislation, professional legal advice and the opinion of the competent authorities should be sought.

Projects already underway: The Historic Religious Buildings Alliance has drawn attention to the fact that in Year 1 of the recently-launched Places of Worship Renewal Fund (PWRF), a limited amount of funding will be available for “projects that have lost anticipated match funding”. Historic England’s website says this:

“Will the fund support projects already underway?”

In Year 1 only, a limited amount of funding will be available to projects that have lost anticipated match funding. This will be provided under stream 1 (grants from £10,000 to £50,000) for projects that began on or after 1 October 2025 and are due to complete by 30 September 2026, provided that they:

• • Meet all other PWRF eligibility criteria
  • Have not previously received funding through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.

To apply for funding in year 1 for works already in progress or completed, please email PWRF@HistoricEngland.org.uk and you will be sent a separate application form to complete and return.”

All other PWRF eligibility criteria must be met, and the HRBA is encouraging a careful reading of the website before pursuing this possibility.

Expressions of Interest: The deadline for submitting Expressions of Interest for grants from the first round of the Fund has been extended to Sunday 14 June 2026. A second round will follow soon after in September 2026. The latest date by which applicants will receive a response to their Expression of Interest is now 3 July.

Full applications: The deadline for making a full application has been extended from 16 July to 5 pm on Sunday 26 July. [With thanks to the Historic Religious Buildings Alliance.]

Data (Use and Access) Act 2025: implementation

New regulations under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which come into operation on 19 June 2026, require all organisations to handle data protection complaints expeditiously and to have a data protection policy in place. Under the regulations, they must:

• designate a data protection lead;
• give people a way of making data protection complaints to the organisation;
• acknowledge receipt of complaints within 30 calendar days of receiving them;
• without undue delay, take appropriate steps to respond to complaints, including making appropriate enquiries, and keep people informed; and
• without undue delay, tell people the outcome of their complaints.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on the new requirements, here. Presumably, larger religious organisations will already have appropriate procedures in place; smaller ones, however, might not.

Upcoming consultation on weddings law

In reply to a question from Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli, Plaid), Catherine Atkinson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the MoJ said this:

“The Government has announced its intention to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler, and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. The current aim is that the consultation on the reform of weddings law in England and Wales will be launched before the summer recess, which commences on 16 July 2026.”

Update regarding the appointment of the next Bishop of Bristol

On 27 May, the Church of England announced that “The Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) for Bristol met in April and nominated a candidate for the See of Bristol. The individual has since decided, with regret, to withdraw from the nomination for family reasons”. A separate announcement was made by the Diocese.

Inevitably, social media was quick to question why two names had not been supplied to the CNC, to which Madeleine Davies of the Church Times quickly responded: “…In 2019, standing orders were changed to relieve CNCs of the requirement to provide a second name ‘in the light of the fact that the second name is very rarely needed‘”, GS 2144. Readers will recall that on 17 February 2025, it was reported that the individual nominated to be the next Bishop of Durham had withdrawn from the process, for which the reasons were unstated. Further, the initial considerations of the CNC for the Sees of Carlisle and Ely failed to nominate a candidate.

In a recent post on 14 April, Stephen Parsons noted that there were:

“nine diocesan episcopal posts that are vacant or to become vacant by the summer.  Two further diocesan posts are in temporary abeyance (Lincoln and Salisbury) while the current incumbents await the result of disciplinary enquiries that are being undertaken. That would possibly bring the total number of diocesan vacancies to 11. This total means that around 25% of the senior episcopal posts in England are currently in or about to enter a temporary vacancy”.

Quick links:

• Hilary Aldred and Virginia Henley, Lexology: What should charities be doing now given the forthcoming changes to employment law?
• Shaun de Freitas, Australian Journal of Law & Religion: Freedom of Religion in Communities of Legal Scholarship: A Christian Perspective.

And finally…

An English-language Bangladeshi newspaper reports that the life of a buffalo that allegedly bears a more-than-passing resemblance to the current President of the US, and which had been sold by the breeder to a customer for sacrifice during the feast of Eid-ul-Adha, will be spared after a special intervention by the Ministry of Home Affairs. This time, you really couldn’t make it up…

**********

Introduction

This short paper seeks to examine:

• What has contemporary academic scholarship established about the origins, symbolism and interpretation of the Green Man image in English architecture, particularly in ecclesiastical settings.
• Why there are associations with the image and paganism in some parts of contemporary culture.
• Whether a Green Man image is permissible on a memorial headstone, in light of the applicable law and regulations.

 Origins, symbolism and interpretation of the Green Man image

The Green Man symbol, in the sense of the “foliate head”, begins to appear in England in the early 12^th century. The historian Ronald Hutton summarises its origins as follows:

“They were revealed to have been a motif originally developed in India, which travelled through the medieval Arab empire to Christian Europe. There it became a decoration for monks’ manuscripts, from which it spread to churches.”[1]

There are some earlier instances of humans or animals appearing with vegetation, but this is hardly surprising, given the inspiration of the natural world. It is also possible that some aspects of the artistic style of the foliate head designs were influenced by other societies, including pagan ones.[2] This is to be expected, given that neither decorative images nor cultural symbols ever arise in a cultural vacuum, and Christian spiritual buildings and objects frequently reflect this, e.g. consider the Pictish illustrations and illuminations in the Book of Kells.[3]

Nevertheless, it has now been convincingly established that the Green Men images as they appear in churches were understood by both their creators and observers as fitting within a Christian worldview.[4] Furthermore, it is reasonable to observe that Christian sacred art frequently depicts images intended to be perceived negatively e.g. Medieval depictions of Hell, or figures of demons tempting souls.[5]  The fact than an image or symbol might be appropriately displayed in a place of worship does not necessarily signify that it would be appropriate for inclusion in a memorial. It is therefore a material consideration that the Green Man was generally construed in a positive light.[6]

In a recent and highly detailed work, Miller demonstrates that the Green Man was it appears in church carvings is a distinctly Christian image, whatever antecedent influences it may have had.[7] He correctly observes that the Medieval worshipping community who produced the Green Man was well versed in both Biblical narratives and Christian lore, and would undoubtedly have made ready and sophisticated connections. He links the image with  stories about Adam, and the Garden of Eden, the Quest of Seth,[8] as well as meditations on the cross and crucifixion, for example, Jacobus Voragine’s The Golden Legend [9] and Honorius of Autun’s Imago mundi (an encyclopaedia and Christian world history).[10]

One narrative of particular relevance was the “Legend of the Rood”, an interconnected collection of stories derived from the overarching narrative of the Bible, demonstrating that even the Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden were part of God’s Divine plan, and that the wider picture of Christ’s death and resurrection.[11] As Adam lies dying, he sends his son Seth back to the Garden of Eden to beg a potion that will render him immortal. Unsurprisingly, he is refused entry by the angelic guard, and no elixir is forthcoming.  Nevertheless, mercy is shown, and he is given a seed from the tree bearing the fruit picked and eaten by the first humans. By the time that Seth returns, Adam has already died, so the grieving son places the seed under his father’s tongue and buries him in a place that will one day become Golgotha. A tree grows, which is eventually cut down. Over centuries, the wood is put to many uses, but it eventually becomes the cross of Christ. Thus, the eternal life lost by humanity through rejection of God is regained not through a magical elixir, but the painful sacrifice and glorious resurrection of Christ.

The Green Man would have connected more than one story and trope within the Christian cosmos, but above all else, was linked to the promise of rebirth. Trees had long been associated with the crucifixion in northern European Christian culture, and the symmetry of a tree as the vehicle for both the fall and redemption of humankind was stressed.[12]

Alongside the Scriptural narrative, there is there is the reality that deciduous trees are natural, organic symbols of rebirth. This also would not have been lost on the people making and viewing the Green Man images. Yet it is important to stress that they would have done so through the specifically Christian cultural paradigm in which they moved.   The people who gazed at Green Men in churches would not only have thought of winter and spring, but also made the connection between this seasonal death and rebirth, and the cosmic journey from death brought by the Fall to the life flowing from the crucifixion and resurrection. This raises the legitimate question, however: if the Green Man was clearly and profoundly a Christian symbol, why has it come to have pagan associations?

Associations with the image and paganism in some parts of contemporary culture

The answer to this question lies the wider quest of some folklorists in the early twentieth century to find evidence of an unbroken tradition of ancient pagan religion, that has survived the Christianisation of the British Isles. The work of Margaret Murray in respect of witchcraft was a notable example of this. Murray argued that the witches persecuted in Europe during the Early Modern era were in fact secret practitioners of a surviving pagan religion. For a while, mainstream scholarship embraced this idea, although it has now been conclusively disproven.[13] Nevertheless, it has retained a hold in popular culture and imagination.

The treatment of the Green Man by the folklorist Lady Raglan in 1939 is part of this broad trend within the discipline. She made connections between the Green Man figures in churches, and the unrelated phenomena of May Day processions and Jack-in-the-Green, as well as the popular “Green Man” pub sign. Research in the later twentieth century again unequivocally discredited this, illustrating the true origin of the foliate heads set out above, as well as the genesis of the other traditions mentioned (neither of which is of any great antiquity).[14]

However, the idea had attracted attention and gained a lot of support, including from many within the neo-pagan community. The Green Man came to be embraced by various neo-pagan writers and speakers, having an obvious connection with themes of nature and the changing seasons, important aspects of the spirituality of many people within these groups, as well as an apparent connection with pre-Christian faith.

In the current era, some pagans remain unaware of that these theories have been rejected by the academic community, whilst others reject these findings. There are also some modern pagans who are aware that the carvings have no direct connection to any ancient faith, and were made and used by Christian people, but nevertheless choose to retain the image because they find it helpful. Therefore, the Green Man continues to be found within Pagan circles.

The Green Man as an image on a memorial headstone, in light of the applicable law and regulations

Taking into account all of the above, the Green Man is very different from the Masonic symbols discussed in Re St Mary Canwell [2020][15] and the leading case of Re St Oswald’s Churchyard[16] The reasoning in both cases related to the questions about the compatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity, which have been acknowledged by the formal structures of the Church of England (although the judgments were careful to stress that they were not making any determination on that issue).

The Green Man is not a symbol from a movement like Freemasonry, nor can it really credibly be described as a pagan symbol which some Christians have adopted. It is a Christian symbol, carved in the stone of Church buildings because it would cause those who saw it to reflect on some of the core themes and stories of the faith. In light of this, it is difficult to see how it could be construed as being an inappropriate image for a Christian burial place.

It must be acknowledged that there will be some observers who may be unaware of the history of the Green Man and may misguidedly construe the symbol as pagan.    However, the weight of the scholarship is overwhelmingly that it is indeed Christian in nature.

Helen Hall and Javier Garcia Oliva, 16 January 2024

Bibliography

Boenig, Robert, Anglo-Saxon Spirituality: Selected Writings, Paulist Press (2000)

Caciola, Nancy Discerning Spirits: Divine and Demonic Possession in the Middle Ages, Cornell University Press, 2006)

Corrigan, “The Function and Development of The Foliate Head in English Medieval Churches” University of Birmingham (2020)

Cate Gunn, ‎ Liz Herbert McAvoy, ‎ Naoë Kukita Yoshikawa, Women and Devotional Literature in the Middle Ages Boydell and Brewer, (2023)

Hutton, Ronald, “How Pagan Were Medieval English Peasants?” Folklore No. 122(3) (2011), 253

Le Goff, Jacques, “In Search of Sacred Time: Jacobus de Voragine and The Golden Legend ”Princeton University Press (2014)

MacDermott, Mercia, Explore Green Men, Explore Books (2006)

Muir, Lynette, The Biblical Drama of Medieval Europe, CUP (2003),

Netton, Ian Islam, Christianity and the Mystic Journey: A Comparative Exploration, Edinburgh University Press (2011)

Purkiss, Diane, The Witch in History: Early Modern and Twentieth Century Representations, Routledge (1996)

Skipworth, Hannah, “Signs of Life: Images of the living world in Honorius Augustodunensis and Hildegard of Bingen” Monash University (2021)

Smither, Edward, Missionary Monks: An Introduction to the History and Theology of Missionary Monasticism Cascade Books, (2016).

Notes

[1] R Hutton, “How Pagan was Medieval Britain?” Gresham College 7 June 2023

[2] I Corrigan, “The Function and Development of The Foliate Head in English Medieval Churches” University of Birmingham (2020)

[3] E Smither, Missionary Monks: An Introduction to the History and Theology of Missionary Monasticism Cascade Books, 2016 72

[4] M MacDermott, Explore Green Men, Explore Books (2006)

[5] N Caciola, Discerning Spirits: Divine and Demonic Possession in the Middle Ages, Cornell University Press, (2006) 165

[6] I Netton, Islam, Christianity and the Mystic Journey: A Comparative Exploration, Edinburgh University Press (2011), 25

[7] S Miller, The Green Man in Medieval England; Christian Shoots from Pagan Roots, Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2022)

[8] Gunn, G, ‎Herbert McAvoy,L, and ‎Kukita Yoshikawa, N, Women and Devotional Literature in the Middle Ages Boydell and Brewer, (2023)154

[9] Le Goff, J, “In Search of Sacred Time: Jacobus de Voragine and The Golden Legend ”Princeton University Press (2014)

[10] Skipworth, H, “Signs of Life: Images of the living world in Honorius Augustodunensis and Hildegard of Bingen” Monash University (2021)

[11] Muir, L, The Biblical Drama of Medieval Europe, CUP (2003), 134

[12] Boenig, R, Anglo-Saxon Spirituality: Selected Writings, Paulist Press (2000) 272

[13] Purkiss, D. The Witch in History: Early Modern and Twentieth Century Representations, Routledge (1996)

[14] R Hutton, “How Pagan was Medieval Britain?” Gresham College 7 June 2023

[15] Re St Mary Canwell [2020] ECC Lic 2

[16] Re St Oswald’s Churchyard [2016] ECC Car 5

“Pope Leo XIV has taken up the legacy of his predecessor, writing a social encyclical which addresses one of the principal challenges of the contemporary age: artificial intelligence. Divided into five chapters, Magnifica humanitas has an underlying premise: technology is not ‘a force antagonistic to humanity’, nor is it ‘inherently evil’. However, ‘technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it’. He appeals for the safeguarding of humanity, promotion of truth, dignity of work, social justice, and peace”.

The five chapters are:

• “A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel”—traces the Social Doctrine of the Church in recent magisterium and the Second Vatican Council, highlighting “its dynamic character”.
• “Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church”. These foundations, he says, include the dignity of the person, created in the image and likeness of God. It is important to recall this since “the pressure of new ideologies or certain highly powerful interests” can reduce the human person to “a resource to be used and exploited” or “on what they achieve or produce”.
• Technology and Dominance. The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI stresses the need to approach artificial intelligence with vigilance. Pope Leo warns about the “technocratic paradigm” already denounced by Pope Francis and how it can require that every choice be dictated exclusively by measuring efficiency and profits.
• Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom—the Pope calls for an “ecology of communication” based on truth. He urges transparency in how content is selected, protection of personal data, serious journalism founded on argumentation and verification, a new awareness in the “proper and critical” use of digital tools, and the integration of different forms of knowledge.
• The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love—Pope Leo XIV turns to war, saying “the digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict.” The Pope calls for an ethical approach, without which decisions about the life and death of persons will become increasingly impersonal due to a use of force regarded as an “immediate and viable option”.

Artificial Intelligence 

Pope Leo XIV indicates that it is not his intention to offer a comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence, nor to give an overview of the extensive relevant literature, since authoritative contributions already exist, including within the ecclesial context (reference [123]). He limits himself to recalling a few essential elements for a moral and social discernment that safeguards the primacy of the human person, in order to ensure that it will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits. He comments [emphasis added]:

• It is appropriate to preface this discussion with two considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are developing. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Indeed, current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at present, unknown. There thus emerges an urgent need for a twofold commitment: on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the other, the exercise of moral and spiritual discernment.
• It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean.
• Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behaviour and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

References

[123] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova (14 January 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 159-210; Francis, Message for the 57^th World Day of Peace (8 December 2023): AAS 116 (2024), 54-64; Francis, Message for the 58^th World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): AAS 116 (2024), 261-266; Francis, Address to the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence: “An exciting and fearsome tool” (14 June 2024): AAS 116 (2024), 866-875; International Theological Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity (9 February 2026); Message for the 60^th World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2026): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2026, 2-3.

Pope Leo XIV’s address in English at the publication of his Encyclical Letter Magnifica humanitas, on safeguarding the human person in the age of Artificial Intelligence.

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a restructuring of its Office for Civil Rights that will create separate divisions focused on religious liberty and conscience protections, civil rights enforcement, and health privacy and cybersecurity. HHS said the changes are intended to combat anti-Christian bias and race-based discrimination while strengthening enforcement efficiency.
• A Virginia appeals court revived a lawsuit against McLean Bible Church over claims that church leaders improperly handled a 2021 elder election and disenfranchised members. The court ruled that limited judicial review of the dispute is not automatically barred by the First Amendment.
• A new lawsuit in Utah, backed by pro-life advocates with religious and fetal personhood arguments, claims that disposing of unused IVF embryos violates wrongful death laws. The case has raised concerns that similar religion-influenced legal challenges to IVF practices could spread to other states.
• A Texas jury ordered an insurer to pay more than $7 million to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary after the insurer denied coverage for legal costs related to lawsuits involving former seminary president Paige Patterson and the school’s handling of sexual assault allegations. The case arose from broader controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention over abuse and institutional accountability.
• Two senators introduced a bipartisan bill aimed at combating antisemitism and increasing security protections for Jewish institutions, including a proposal to expand federal nonprofit security grants to $1 billion annually. The legislation would also address antisemitism on college campuses and require greater transparency from social media companies on moderating antisemitic content.
• The Vatican’s Synod office released a new document outlining the path toward a global ecclesial assembly in 2028, continuing the Catholic Church’s “Synod on Synodality” process launched under Pope Francis. The plan establishes stages for dioceses, bishops’ conferences, and continental church bodies to evaluate how “synodality” is being implemented in local churches over the next several years.
• A Catholic nun in Los Angeles runs Francisco Homes, a housing program for formerly incarcerated men, including immigrants facing deportation. Her ministry sits in the context of ongoing debates over immigration enforcement and deportation policy.
• Archbishop John Ricard, the former archbishop of Baltimore and first leader of the National Black Catholic Congress, has died at age 86. Ricard was a prominent Black Catholic leader known for advancing Black Catholic ministry and advocacy within the Church for decades.

The post Around the Web appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

L&RUK has reported on developments in the Listed Places of Worship Fund (“the Fund”) since 2017 when it was announced that it would continue at its current levels until March 2020, with no changes planned to the eligibility criteria or application process. In March 2025, Harlow Consulting issued a questionnaire aimed at those responsible for looking after listed places of worship. The user survey was conducted on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as part of an evaluation of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.

On 22 January 2026, the Government announced a £1.5 billion package of support for “cultural organisations” over the coming five years, with “£230 million for heritage, protecting and preserving heritage buildings, including listed places of worship, across the country”. Specifically in relation to places of worship:

“In recognition of the important role religious heritage buildings play in the UK’s national story, a new £92 million fund called the Places of Worship Renewal Fund will replace the £23 million Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme and bring these important buildings into line with other heritage assets. It will give them access to the same level of financial support from the Government as historic houses, monuments and other heritage sites.”

At the same time, DCMS published Evaluation of the Listed Places of Worship Scheme – Final Report. This concluded that “in most cases the grant is contributing directly to securing more repair and maintenance to listed places of worship”.

Recent Developments

On 19 May 2026, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) issued the Press Release Leaking church roofs to be fixed and heritage buildings revitalised as applications open for £48 million of heritage funding. This explained: “[p]art of the wider £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere Fund, these investments will be targeted at areas of high deprivation, which face the greatest fundraising challenges”.

More informative was the subtitle “Three heritage funds have opened for Expressions of Interest, including the new £92 million Places of Worship Renewal Fund, as well as the second rounds of the Heritage at Risk Capital Fund and Heritage Revival Fund“. These are summarized below.

Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Offering up to £23 million this year, the new Places of Worship Renewal Fund will support a range of small to large projects, from urgent structural repairs to physical access improvements and the installation of new facilities to expand community use. A further £69 million will be made available across the course of this parliament.

Listed places of worship across the country have reported falling behind on structural repairs and maintenance, with those in areas of high deprivation facing overwhelming challenges to fundraising for the capital costs of building works. The Places of Worship Renewal Fund targets those areas of the greatest need, helping remove previously insurmountable financial barriers to crucial repairs with upfront capital grants. It is open to listed places of worship serving all faiths.

The new funding scheme brings listed places of worship in line with the funding opportunities that other heritage buildings enjoy, with confirmation of the scheme for the next four years providing much-needed certainty to the church sector. The scheme will be delivered by Historic England, who have well developed relationships across the sector and can draw on their depth of experience to support communities and volunteers with projects of all sizes.

Heritage at Risk Capital Fund

A second round of the Heritage at Risk Capital Fund has opened for Expressions of Interest, backing projects that ensure heritage buildings are fit for the future and continue to tell our national story in communities across the country. The fund prioritises projects that restore heritage sites serving disadvantaged communities and which demonstrate strong local benefits, from job creation to cultural events.

Up to £15 million in funding is available to at-risk heritage sites this year, as part of a total £75 million Heritage at Risk Capital Fund. Note however, that  that “Private dwellings, places of worship and commercial buildings are only exceptionally considered“.

Heritage Revival Fund

The Heritage Revival Fund has also opened applications to its second round, with funding doubling to £10 million per year. The fund – worth £45 million in total – helps communities to rescue and repurpose neglected historic buildings and transform them to meet modern needs, focusing on regenerating historic buildings in town centre locations to create new arts and culture venues, workspaces, affordable housing, and more.

Comment

The Church of England has issued the Press Release New listed places of worship fund launched which notes: “[s]ome types of work attract a zero or lower rate of VAT and there is an introduction to these here: Understanding VAT Zero‑Rating for Church Works | The Church of England.

Further information has also been published by Historic England .

This month, I have had the pleasure of teaching an online seminar on the Supreme Court of the United States for students in Yerevan State University’s Master’s Program in American Studies. The seminar focuses on the Court’s power of judicial review and the limits on that power—limits imposed by the other branches of government, by the Court itself, and by the American people. We also have been discussing current proposals for Supreme Court reform. I have used the Court’s Religion Clause jurisprudence as an example of its influence in US life.

The seminar has been a lot of fun. The students have asked excellent questions about constitutional law, judicial power, and the Court’s role in American public life. I am grateful to Yerevan State University, the Master’s Program in American Studies, Alexander Markarov, and Vahagn Aglyan for the invitation and for their hospitality.

The post Movsesian Teaches Seminar at Yerevan State University appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

The first post on Law & Religion UK addressed the successful challenge of the National Secular Society, (NSS), and Mr Clive Bone, a former Bideford town councillor, to the inclusion of ‘Prayers’ as the first substantive item of business at full meetings of the Council, National Secular Society & Anor, R (on the application of) v Bideford Town Council [2012] EWHC 175 (Admin) (10 February 2012).

This held that that saying prayers as part of the formal agenda of a council meeting was unlawful, since S111 of the Local Government Act 1972 did not authorize it, and there was no other statutory power permitting prayers. The ruling turned purely on statutory powers; the court did not find a human‑rights breach.

Although Bideford Council was granted leave to appeal, this was overtaken by events as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles fast-tracked section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 to give local (and parish councils from April 2012) “power to do anything that individuals generally may do”, in an attempt to restore their ability to hold “Council Prayers” following the High Court ruling. However, this did not apply to Wales, nor to smaller parish councils or certain single‑purpose authorities.

There remained legal uncertainty about whether the general power covered prayers, and the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Act 2015  was introduced specifically to remove all doubt and to provide a clear statutory basis. The Act fully reversed the effect of the Bideford ruling and councils in England and Wales may: include prayers or other observances as part of the formal agenda; choose the form of observance (e.g. Christian, multi‑faith, or non‑religious reflective observance); and allow councillors to opt out without disadvantage (a practice encouraged but not mandated). The Act does not require councils to have prayers; it simply permits them.

As we observed at the time, the initial action taken by the NSS appeared to be an example of “be very careful what you wish for”, (although at the time we suggested “that in practice relatively little would change as a consequence of the new Act, but equally, future legal action along the lines of Bideford seemed unlikely).

Recent Events

The opinions of Local Authorities to “Council Prayers” have changed since events at Bideford, and last year the NSS observed that Reform councillors imposed prayers on Derbyshire County Council after the party had taken control of the Council. More recently in Kent County Council (KCC), on 12 May 2026 Local Government Lawyer reported that the County Council’s monitoring officer had warned she may have to issue a section 5 report after members voted to debate a constitutional amendment that would see the Lord’s Prayer livestreamed during full council meetings. 

A report by monitoring officer Petra Der Man had indicated that prayers could lawfully be held either off camera at the start or end of meetings, or in a separate room for those wishing to participate. However, Kent County Council, controlled by Reform UK, passed a motion to begin meetings with the Lord’s Prayer and the national anthem, both to be livestreamed. The move followed a committee decision to put the issue to all 81 councillors, and an amendment allowed the prayer to be broadcast despite earlier legal warnings.

Introduction

Church of England churches own a store of moveable assets which have come to be called “church treasures” and are highly prized. They may consist of ancient artefacts, silver, items of historic interest and works of art, and may include secular items which have been deposited in churches.

As “Treasures on Earth” – A Report by a Working Party of the Council for Places of Worship (General Synod 08132 (1973)), quoted in 2014 by the Court of Arches in Re St Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches, [2015] Fam 27 [35], stated:

“One of the most excellent ambitions of Christians … has been to express their faith in the language of the arts – in architecture, sculpture, painting, mosaic, music and poetry – and thus to build houses of God which are symbols of that faith, thereafter furnishing them with objects as nearly worthy of the worship of God as human skill can make them.  The triumphant realisation of that godly ambition by men in every age from that of the early Chistian church down to the present day has been instrumental in creating the great store of treasures owned by the churches …”

It may sometimes be tempting for a church struggling with financial difficulties to sell some of its treasures in order to fund its needs – perhaps to repair its roof or to modernise its heating system.  On the other hand a church may find that one of its treasures has become more of a liability than an asset because the church cannot afford the expense necessary to retain its valuable treasure due to the costs incurred in storage, insurance and restoration.

However, church treasures may not be disposed of without the permission by way of a faculty granted by the Consistory Court. The Court of Arches had made it clear in Re St Lawrence Oakley that there was “a strong presumption against” the sale of church treasures and that a faculty should not be granted by the Consistory Court unless there were “sufficiently compelling” grounds to outweigh that strong presumption.

Re St Peter, Little Budworth

The dilemmas which parishes could face in regard to their church treasures and the issues which confront the Consistory Court when considering an application by a parish for a faculty to dispose of a church treasure were well illustrated by the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Chester in Re St Peter Little Budworth [2025] ECC Chr 1, when the churchwardens of Saint Peter’s Church, Little Budworth, a post-medieval Grade II* listed church, applied for a faculty to sell by auction one of its church treasures: a painting entitled “The Good Shepherd” by William Dyce (1806–1864), a Scottish-born painter who had been associated with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.  [1]

The painting depicts a full-length portrait of Jesus Christ with a lamb in one arm and a crook in his hand, guiding sheep through a narrow opening into an enclosed field.  It had been given to the church in 1924 by a parishioner, Brian Stock, in memory of a family member, James Henry Stock (1855–1907), who had been Member of Parliament for Liverpool Walton from 1892 to 1906.  [2], [18].

For over 50 years the original painting had not been physically displayed in the church as it had been on loan to various museums.  A reproduction had hung in the church for some time since the removal of the original. By 1977, the painting had been visibly deteriorating.  It was believed that that was due largely to atmospheric conditions in the church.  In 1978, the painting was sent to the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool, where “minimal restoration” was carried out.  The painting remained on loan in Liverpool until it was transferred to the Manchester City Art Gallery in 1987.  It remained on loan there until 2024, when the parish was informed by the gallery that the painting was no longer wanted.  [24]

The prospect of the physical return of the painting concerned the churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council, with the result that in December 2024, arrangements were made for the painting to be collected by the auctioneers, Bonhams, where it remained pending a decision as to its future.  [24] Since then, the parish had explored alternative options for the display of the painting but had had no success.  Several other galleries, including the Walker Gallery, the Aberdeen Art Gallery and the Victoria and Albert Museum which had been contacted, were not interested mainly due to lack of funds and budgetary constraints.  [27] – [31].

In those circumstances, the Churchwardens of St Peter’s petitioned the Consistory Court for authority to sell the painting by auction at Bonhams. The petition was formally unopposed. The Church Buildings Council (“CBC”) had reservations about the sale but did not wish to become a party opponent.  [1] [4]

The CBC said that its guidance entitled “Brief Guide to Disposals and Loans” (May 2024) should be given due consideration. That guidance made it clear that sales should be “sparingly exercised” and a strong justification needed to be made in order for the Chancellor to make a decision.  The CBC did not feel a strong case had been made in the present petition.  [5]

The Chancellor, Judge David Turner KC, observed that this was not one of those cases where the parish prayed in aid a particular financial crisis or existential “emergency” for the sale of the painting, which had not been displayed in the church for over 50 years.  [32] [33] The churchwarden petitioners had concluded that they simply did not have the funds to appraise, and then implement, the complex conservation and restoration work that was plainly required.  [34]

If the parish were to invest the sum needed to adapt the church for the purposes of storing a painting, the petitioners said that it would hasten the closure of the church and the withdrawal of parish ministry.  [12] They were convinced that the necessary work to effect the required environmental changes and a “security upgrade” were unaffordable and, in any event, should not be prioritised over the undoubted need for maintenance and improvement generally to the fabric of the church building, the earliest parts of which dated back to 1490.  [34]

The petitioners made clear their desire to insulate the roof void, replace the boiler and heating system, improve external paths, renew internal and external signage, and provide large print service books. [35] Given the fragility of parish finances, the very modest congregational profile and the indisputable existing fabric needs, the petitioners argued that it was simply not possible for them to provide and sustain the facilities required to reinstate the painting in the church. They said, “We cannot afford for a painting that has not been displayed for 50 years to be returned to Saint Peter’s.”  [38]

The Diocesan Advisory Committee (“DAC”) was sympathetic to that reasoning and recommended the grant of the faculty sought. The DAC’s reasons were: that the painting was not original to the church building; that there was a reproduction on display and the sale of the original would not cause any visible change in the church; that the original had not been in the church for over 50 years; that the parish did not want the liability of having to keep the original in the church; that the environment in the church was not suitable for the original and the church was not financially resourced to upgrade its environment and security to make it more favourable for keeping the original there; that the parish was not financially resourced to carry out restoration to the painting; and that the parish had not been able to find another museum to take the painting on loan.  [39], [40]

The Chancellor said that a great deal of jurisprudence had been generated around the disposal of church treasures, and the modern law was identified in the St Lawrence Wootten case. That case identified several matters of relevance, including the following.  [41]

Church treasures should only be removed in the most exceptional circumstances.  They were not “ordinary assets”.  They belonged to the parishioners and were in the care for the time being of the current generation, who had a duty to have regard to their care for the future. They formed part of the original “story” of the church and those who worshipped, cared for and sought to benefit it. They were held in common not only with our predecessors, but also our successors. They were not to be idolised but were expressions of creativity and faith which still had a story to tell and a faith to express.  [42(i)]

When it came to the consideration of sale, the starting point was a strong presumption against sale. In order for petitioners to succeed in overcoming that strong presumption, they had to demonstrate that there were factors of such weight, either individually or cumulatively, that they demonstrated that the grounds were sufficiently compelling to outweigh the strong presumption against sale.  Jurisdiction to allow sales was to be “sparingly exercised”.  [42(iii)]

“Financial need” falling short of “financial emergency” would seldom on its own outweigh the strong presumption against sale, but it could and must be weighed with any other factors favouring such sale. It followed that a critical or emergency situation would carry more weight than more normal (or near universal) pressures on parish finances.  [42(v)]

Insurance and security were always matters of concern, but it was important to remember that there was no legal requirement to insure for full market value and that a determined thief might always succeed, despite whatever reasonable measures were put in place by a parish. The CBC’s guidance stated that any loss would “be of a treasured possession, not one measured in financial terms.”  But it stated that, generally speaking, “parishes should not seek to dispose of valuable items merely because they could not afford full insurance cover.”  [42(vii)]

The Chancellor concluded, essentially for the same reasons identified by the DAC that this was one of those comparatively rare cases where it could properly be determined that the “cumulative weight of individual factors” was indeed sufficient to outweigh the strong presumption against disposal by sale.  [43]

The “regrettable reality” was, the Chancellor said, that 50 or more years ago it was the fact that the painting had begun to suffer harm by its presence in the (occasionally damp) church and that relocation had become a practical necessity. Two lengthy periods in leading galleries followed, the second ending in 2024. Neither of those galleries had expressed any wish to retain, let alone buy, the painting.  Other galleries which had been approached had responded negatively to suggested options and were reluctant to “take on” new loans at all or expend resources on paintings they felt might not sit well in their public collections.  [44]

The CBC’s guidance had made reference to “a perception that some museums are increasingly reluctant to act as repositories for treasures on loan from churches.”  [45]

The Chancellor concluded that “disposal by loan” and “disposal by limited sale” had been properly and reasonably explored, but without success and that the point of request for “disposal by outright sale” had now been reached.  [52]

The faculty sought was granted for sale by auction or private treaty by Bonhams at the best price reasonably obtainable.  [53]

Shiranikha Herbert

Update 20 May 2026, with thanks to David Turner KC. The painting was sold at Bonhams on 25 March 2026 for £267,100 inc. premium.

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web

• The Fourth Circuit ruled that Virginia may deny state scholarship funding for students pursuing vocational religious degrees, siding with the state in a challenge brought by a Liberty University student. The court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Locke v. Davey controlled and permitted states to withhold funding for religious instruction programs. 
• The Supreme Court allowed access to the abortion pill mifepristone by mail to remain in place while litigation continues. The decision pauses a lower court ruling that would have imposed new restrictions on the drug’s distribution. 
• A group of federal employees sued Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, alleging that religious messages sent through official USDA emails promoted Christianity in the workplace. The lawsuit claims the emails violated the Establishment Clause by amounting to government endorsement of religion. 
• An Iraqi court ruled in favor of a woman seeking to change her official religious designation from Islam to Christianity, a decision that could have broader implications for religious rights in the country. 
• France’s Senate rejected an assisted-dying bill this week, as Christian and pro-life groups called on lawmakers to preserve the decision. The debate has drawn continued attention from religious organizations and renewed disputes over end-of-life legislation. 

The post Around the Web appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Antisemitism

On Wednesday, in the course of the Speech from the Throne at the State Opening of Parliament, His Majesty said: “My Government will take urgent action to tackle antisemitism and ensure all communities feel safe”. On the same day, in a letter to the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, wrote:

“Over the last six weeks, Jewish Londoners have been under a sustained period of attack. This has included the attack on a Hatzola ambulance on 23 March, nine other arson/attempted arson attacks, and most significantly the terrorist attack on 29 April in Golders Green, in which two British Jews were stabbed. British Jews are not currently safe in their capital city. This is unacceptable.”

On Thursday, the Commons Home Affairs Committee held an oral evidence session on responses to antisemitism, while The Times reports that during a visit to the Sternberg Centre, also  on Thursday, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that antisemitism

“is the terrifying reality for so many Jewish communities, as we have witnessed a horrifying increase in antisemitic violence over the past few weeks, months and years. It is completely unacceptable that you live this reality every day. This is not a problem for the Jewish community to solve. It’s on all of us — every single member of our society — to call out antisemitism whenever we see it, and to oppose it without hesitation or qualification.”

Abusive conversion practices

The King’s Speech also included a promise to bring forward a draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices [Draft Conversion Practices Bill]. The commitment to bring forward a draft bill to ban conversion practices was included in the King’s Speech in July 2024, which set out the Government’s legislative agenda and policy priorities for its first session of Parliament. However, the bill was not published before the Prorogation of Parliament at the end of April 2026, and Labour’s Manifesto did not give a specific date for its introduction.

New faith minister

The Religion Media Centre reports that Nesil Caliskan, MP for Barking, has been appointed as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Devolution, Faith and Communities at MHCLG, replacing Miatta Fahnbulleh, who resigned when calling for Keir Starmer to quit. Caliskan, 37, was elected in 2024 and has spent the past eight months serving as Comptroller of the Household, the third most senior government whip in the House of Commons. She is the ninth faith minister in ten years. Her Wiki entry says she is the first MP of Turkish-Cypriot heritage, raised in Enfield, with a background as a parliamentary researcher, local councillor and other roles in local government.

The Council of Europe and deportation

On Friday, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe published the Chişinău Declaration, which is principally concerned with the issue of deportation of failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals, especially in light of Article 3 (torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (private and family life). On the somewhat vexed question of the margin of appreciation, it notes at [5] that;

“In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of the margin of appreciation, there may be a range of different but legitimate solutions when applying certain Convention provisions, each of which could be compatible with the Convention depending on the context. Where a balancing exercise has been undertaken at the national level in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s jurisprudence, the Court has generally indicated that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the domestic courts, unless there are strong reasons for doing so.”

Specifically on migration and expulsion, it says this:

“Specific migration-related issues

16. There are significant, complex, migration-related challenges in various member States which were either unforeseen at the time the Convention was drafted or have evolved significantly since then. The failure to address these challenges adequately may weaken public confidence in the Convention system.

17. The majority of migrants residing legally in the States Parties contribute positively to the receiving societies. Migrants’ fundamental rights and freedoms must be respected and protected in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination.

18. States Parties have the undeniable sovereign right to decide on and control foreign nationals’ entry into and residence in their territory. They have the right to establish their own immigration policies, potentially in the context of bilateral or regional co-operation, and pursue immigration control as a public interest. However, these rights must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

19. It is an obligation and a necessity for States Parties to protect their borders in compliance with Convention guarantees, which may include putting arrangements in place at their borders designed to allow access to their national territory only to persons who fulfil the relevant legal requirements.

Expulsion & extradition

20. The inability to expel or extradite an individual convicted or charged with a serious offence can lead to significant challenges for States, including in relation to their fundamental duty to guarantee the right to everyone within their jurisdiction to live in peace, freedom and security, notably by protecting public safety and national security and preventing disorder and crime.

21. The States Parties are encouraged to develop and clarify domestic frameworks ensuring the effective and context-specific application of the relevant Convention rights, including Articles 3 and 8, in cases involving expulsion and extradition.”

The Declaration is non-binding; however, Alain Berset, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, said that it was a “very strong … signal of firm support” for the ECHR by all 46 countries and would “help to guide our own work, as well as that of national authorities and domestic courts”. And in case you are wondering what this has to do with “religion”, the issue is whether or not it will satisfy those calling for the UK to withdraw from the Convention.  BBC report here.

Little green men?

In Re St Edward, Kempley (concerning a memorial to the late Roy Stirzaker) [2025] EEC Glo 1, Mr Stirzaker had been a Morris dancer, and his widow, the Petitioner, wanted a representation of a Green Man carved on his headstone in acknowledgement of that association [1&2]. The priest-in-charge had told her that the proposed design might fall outside the Chancellor’s guidelines, and after consulting the Archdeacon and the Registrar, he had concluded that permission could not be given “as the green man symbol is not considered a Christian symbol” [3].

Ruffell Ch decided that the point needed further research [4]. He noted that there were Green Man carvings in Gloucester Cathedral and Exeter Cathedral and that the invitation to the Coronation of Their Majesties in 2023 “contained the image of a green man” [5]. He also noted that in The Green Man/Foliate Head as a Symbol in the Context of Christian Memorialisation, Helen Hall and Javier Garcia Oliva had examined the origins and interpretation of the Green Man image in English architecture in some detail, “particularly in ecclesiastical settings” [7]. He concluded that “there is a strong body of evidence to suggest that the green man is a Christian symbol. Whilst there is evidence that some have tried to link the green man to past traditions, I am not convinced that this linking is historically accurate” [11]. He therefore granted a faculty [12]. [With thanks to Ray Hemingray.]

[Update 26 May 2026: A Guest Post “The Green Man/Foliate Head as a Symbol in the Context of Christian Memorialisation” is here.]

“Coelos ascendit hodie”

On Ascension Day, Janet Gough sought to champion a return to public view for William Hogarth’s vast Ascension triptych – proof that the English could rival the Continentals in grand-scale church history painting. Painted for St Mary Redcliffe, it now hangs hidden behind a curtain in St Nicholas, Bristol, a backdrop for the church’s drum kit and keyboard.

The painting was commissioned as a new altarpiece for St Mary Redcliffe and was Hogarth’s only commission from the Church of England, for which he was paid £525 and for which the receipt still exists. The Bristol Museum & Art Gallery “officially acquired the triptych in 1955 from the Art Collections Fund” and ”it has been on display at St Nicholas Church since the 1970s”.

Although apparently not subject to earlier judicial consideration, in view of its location in St Nicholas Church, the painting now falls within the faculty jurisdiction, and any changes to its location must be assessed by the Bristol Consistory Court. Re St Stephen Walbrook is one of the few judgments that addresses the peregrinations and disposal of large but otherwise unwanted works of art.

And finally…

The United Reformed Church, which has about 44,000 members across 1,250 congregations, has rebranded its magazine from Reform to Reformed after readers became “fed up” with being confused for Nigel Farage’s party. A huge 86% of readers of the national publication supported the change.

The magazine’s editor pointed out that the URC is not affiliated with any political party and “does not want the name of its magazine to suggest that it is”.

“3. In this Act, a protected person is a person attending a protected premises for the purpose of–

(a) accessing the treatment, information, advice or counselling there,

(b) accompanying a person described in paragraph (a), at the invitation of that person, or

(c) working in, or providing services to, the protected premises.”

In Director of Public Prosecutions v Johnston [2026] NIMag 1, Clive Johnstone, a former President of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, held what he described as a “gospel outreach” in a Safe Access Zone [“SAZ”] around Causeway Hospital, Newbridge Road, Coleraine, on 7 July 2024 [1]. There was no dispute that he was within a Safe Access Zone as defined by the 2023 Act at the material time [5]. He liaised with the police in advance of the event and was warned that if the event was “conducted in the safe access zone, it will give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence.  Police will be required to take enforcement action” [9].

The police filmed the event. There were about nine people present, with the defendant singing and playing a ukulele and addressing the gathering through a PA system.  The defendant’s address was “of a religious nature”, and the police agreed that the term “abortion” was not used at all, “in accordance with a prior undertaking not to mention ‘abortion’ or to have any leaflets”.  Nor were there any placards [11]. In the end, however, the Inspector in charge warned the group that failure to leave the Safe Access Zone would be a breach of s.6 of the 2023 Act, and they might be prosecuted.  The others started to go, but Mr Johnston remained.  He was warned that if he did not leave the zone immediately, the police might remove him and that if he resisted, he might be prosecuted [12].

What is now s.5(2) of the 2023 Act had been the subject of a challenge in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022] UKSC 32, in which the Attorney had argued that the provision was a disproportionate interference with the freedom of conscience, speech and assembly of anti-abortion protesters and demonstrators under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR [37]. The Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge, Lord Reed concluding at [156] that

“The right of women in Northern Ireland to access abortion services has now been established in law through the processes of democracy.  That legal right should not be obstructed or impaired by the accommodation of claims by opponents of the legislation based, some might think ironically, on the liberal values protected by the Convention.  A legal system which enabled those who had lost the political debate to undermine the legislation permitting abortion, by relying on freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, would in practice align the law with the values of the opponents of reform and deprive women of the protection of rights which have been legislatively enacted.”

In his judgment, DJMC King said that Mr Johnston’s rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR were “clearly engaged”, but no-one disputed that they were qualified rights [42]. He was bound by the Supreme Court’s decision, and the purpose of the hearing was

“ to determine if the ingredients of the offence under section 5 have been established to the necessary standard, the Supreme Court having decided that a conviction following that exercise would not be a disproportionate interference with a defendant’s Convention rights” [44].

He concluded that Mr Johnston had “deliberately placed himself within the SAZ on 7 July 2024 after prolonged prior contact with the police” and “was aware that he was at risk of breaching the provisions of that Act, but he did not divert from the course he had set” [61].

The defence had also raised a devolution issue: in brief, whether the Act breached the defendant’s rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR, singly or together with Article 14 and was therefore outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly [71]. He concluded that this, in effect, invited “re-litigation of matters already determined by the Supreme Court” – which he refused to do [73]. He also refused to make a referral to the Court of Appeal [75].

Mr Johnston was guilty of both charges [76].

In the Matter of a Complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 before the Bishop’s Disciplinary for the Diocese of Derby

Determination

Two preliminary matters arose at the outset of the proceedings, viz. whether the hearing could proceed in the absence of the Respondent and whether to grant an application for the drawing of an adverse inference due to non-attendance [1].

Whether the hearing can proceed in the absence of the Respondent

The Rule 42 Clergy Discipline Rules 2005 provides the Chair with a wide discretion; it states:

“The Registrar of Tribunals or the Chair may proceed with a hearing notwithstanding the absence of the complainant or the respondent, provided the Registrar of Tribunals or the Chair is satisfied that the absent person has had notice of the hearing or that written notice of the hearing has been duly sent or delivered in accordance with Rule 101.”

There was no doubt that the Rev Karen Padley was aware of the hearing date of the proceedings [1].

“In considering whether to proceed in her absence, consideration must be given to the overriding objective to deal fairly with all parties treating each on an equal procedural footing, keeping the parties informed of the allegations and avoiding undue delay and expense…Not to proceed would simply result in further delay with no evidence that a different outcome would arise in the light of her repeated lack of response”[4].

The Chair concluded that the requirements of CDR 42 had been met; The Chair also considered that the overriding objective favours that the hearing goes ahead[5].

Application by the Designated Officer (DO) for a direction for an adverse inference

The Clergy Discipline Rules 2005 Rule 2(2), provides that “any failure to co-operate by a party may result in adverse inferences being made against that party at any stage of the proceedings” [6]. The Designated Officer sought an adverse inference finding in the light of the Respondent’s failure to engage with the process either by responding to correspondence or by attending the hearing [7]. However, whilst there had clearly been multiple failures to engage and participate, the Tribunal could not conclude that the failure was due to the Respondent’s unwillingness to submit her testimony to scrutiny nor necessarily because she did not have a case to answer. The Tribunal therefore declined to direct an adverse finding inference from the Respondent’s failure to engage with the proceedings [8].

Determination

On 30 October 2024, the Deputy President of Tribunals referred the following charges for determination to the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal. The conduct of the Respondent…amounted to neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of her office within s.8(1)(c) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and/or was conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within s.8(1)(d) of the Measure in that she:

(i) Failed to respond to the complainant’s emails about making arrangements for either the respondent or the complainant to give home communion to a vulnerable person (Mrs C a longstanding worshipper who died in February 2024) thereby occasioning confusion and a risk of possible anxiety to Mrs C.

(ii) Failed persistently to communicate with, meet with or otherwise properly engage with the complainant, a clerical colleague in the same group of benefices in which they both minister together.

The Respondent Revd Karen Padley was ordained as a priest in 2001. She has been the vicar of Marlpool since 2004 and in 2016 she became priest in charge of Heanor and Langley Mill and Aldercar, Derby. The Complainant Revd Lisa Shemilt was ordained as a priest in 2006 and appointed associate minister in the benefices in 2016. They had at the outset been on good friendly terms and had worked well together professionally. From about 2020 there was a deterioration in the relationship when the Respondent failed to respond to communications from the complainant. The Complainant also attempted to communicate with the Respondent but received no response [10].

The Tribunal allowed the statements of the witnesses to stand as their evidence in chief and asked additional questions of the witnesses, [11] to [14]. The Complainant confirmed that the relationship with the Respondent had been fulsome at the start but had deteriorated from 16 March 2021. She had become extremely difficult for anyone to deal with. The communication to her had been largely through email and occasional telephone messages. She reported that it had not been a gradual deterioration, it was “like a tap being turned off”, it just stopped.

[…]

The Complainant reported on parishioners who had felt very strongly against the respondent taking funeral services; such was the strength of feeling that one family had gone elsewhere for their funeral service. The complainant stated that she was aware of the respondent exhibiting rudeness and that she could be dominant and domineering in her contact with others [12].

The Venerable Karen Hamblin also gave evidence as a witness in support of the Complainant relying on her written statement as her evidence in chief. She reported that she had previously been colleagues with the Respondent discussing matters of relevance to the diocese and to their ministries…There was anecdotal evidence that prior to Covid the respondent had not always been easy to communicate with and her response to communications had been intermittent…The respondent was looking after her father who had passed away in August 2025 [13].

In her submissions to the Tribunal, the DO relied on the evidence of the Complainant as cogent, consistent and credible. The Complainant had been concerned at the respondent’s conduct but had not herself stopped communicating with the respondent seeking to keep her informed and assisting if there were difficulties. Any anxiety on the part of the Respondent could have been avoided by a simple response [14].

Decision

The Tribunal found the facts alleged were proved. The accounts given by the Complainant and the witness have been clear, consistent and credible and remain unchallenged by the Respondent or by any other evidence. It stated:

“It is not for the panel to speculate or guess the Respondent’s position. She has had many opportunities to put forward a defence or explanation but has repeatedly failed to do so. We are satisfied that the matters raised by the Complainant occurred and that the Respondent’s failure to respond in each of the instances alleged amounted to neglect and inefficiency in the performance of her duties” [16]

It found the Respondent’s behaviour to be puzzling and in the face of many opportunities to act otherwise, to have been disappointing in one tasked with important duties in her role. Having found the matters proved the Tribunal did not move to a consideration of penalties but concluded that the Respondent should be given the opportunity to present mitigation and/or submissions regarding penalty in accordance with directions to be given following this determination [17].

Determination of the Tribunal on Penalty

The decision on penalty was deferred in order to receive submissions from the parties. In accordance with Rule 51 CDR 2005, the Panel invited The Bishop of Derby, The Rt Revd Libby Lane, to express her views as to the appropriate penalty [2]. The Respondent did not attend the hearing on 31 March 2026, and had received directions for  submissions, as she had failed to attend the hearing on 24 November 2025. The Panel was satisfied that the Respondent had decided to continue to deliberately absent herself from attendance at these proceedings, as she has done throughout [3].

The Panel considered the Clergy Discipline Commission’s March 2023 Guidance on Penalties in particular Paragraph 3 which deals with misconduct in public ministry and the trust placed in the clergy by members of the Church and by the wider community[5]. It found that the Respondent’s misconduct was a deliberate and damaging failure to comply with the high standards of Christian behaviour set out in the Ordinal required of clergy [6].

Approach to Penalty

In deciding upon the appropriate Penalty, the Panel considered all the material that has been placed before it[7]; it adopted a staged approach to penalty, applying the Clergy Discipline Commission’s ‘Guidance on Penalties’, and conscious of the need to act fairly, justly, and proportionately[8], and also considered Paragraph 6 of the Guidance which provides that any penalty should be proportionate to the misconduct involved[9].

Stage 1 – Harm and Culpability: The Panel considered that the caused to the Complainant was severe as set out in harm the Victim Impact Statement. But the harm was caused more widely to the congregation, as was clear from the examples instanced in the first hearing and to the public in terms of confidence in the Church and damage to the reputation of the Church.

The Respondent’s actions took place suddenly and in such a way as to seriously disturb and undermine the Complainant’s own duties and responsibilities and in a way which disregarded the trust the congregation placed in Church leaders. Culpability was high as there was deliberate and utter failure to engage with the Complainant despite all efforts to reach out to her[10].

Stage 2 – Aggravating and Mitigating factors: The Panel considered as aggravating factors that the conduct was persistent and prolonged…The extent of her ministry, encompassing 3 benefices, would result in her conduct being widely felt…Over this
prolonged period of non-contact and attempts to reach her, she did not take the opportunity to reflect upon and/or alter her conduct in any way[11].

In so far as mitigating factors are concerned the Panel could not find any were present. The Panel was aware that the misconduct found took place during the Covid pandemic and that at some time the Respondent’s father was said to have been unwell. But none of these facts, nor any others, were submitted by the Respondent as grounds of mitigation. It is not for the Panel to speculate as to what may or may not have been a relevant mitigating factor[12].

Stage 3 – Penalty: In determining the appropriate penalty, the Panel was conscious of the necessity that any penalty imposed should be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct found proved. The Panel considered the penalty in reverse order of seriousness. Having concluded that the threshold for prohibition from ministry had been crossed, and that none of the lesser penalties would be sufficient, the Panel considered whether there was a realistic prospect that the Respondent could be rehabilitated into public ministry if provided with the appropriate training and support[16].

Notwithstanding that the Respondent had not engaged, had not shown remorse or indicated any explanation for her behaviour and had declined to participate in or engage with these proceedings, in the Panel’s view, there was a prospect of rehabilitation if the Respondent chooses to engage. Rehabilitation could enable her to return to ministry and would also ensure protection from repetition of such misconduct in the future. In coming to that conclusion the Panel drew re-assurance from the fact that following limited prohibition there is a formal process of assessment prior to any return to ministry[17].

The Panel’s view, which was shared by the Designated Officer, was that the length of the prohibition should be 3 years after which there would be no automatic right to return to ministry. Pastoral colleagues, congregations and the public would be protected as re-admission will involve a process of independent assessment undertaken for, and to advise, the Bishop[18].

Accordingly, the Panel unanimously concluded that the only appropriate penalty in all the circumstances of this case, was one of removal from the offices of Incumbent of the benefice of Marlpool, priest in charge of the benefice of Heanor and priest in charge of the benefice of Langley Mill with Aldercar, all in the diocese of Derby with immediate effect and that the Reverend Karen Padley is prohibited from the exercise of any of the functions of her Holy Orders for 3 years from 31 March 2026 [20].

Comment

The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 became fully effective on 1 January 2006,  since when Tribunals have addressed approximately 50 referrals. The relatively few that have proceeded without the participation of the Respondent will be reviewed in a subsequent post. That of Rev Karen Padley is unusual in that it was conducted despite complete absence of involvement, and demonstrates how the the current CDM procedure attempts to address the interests of all parties, even those who do not participate.

[1] “She has been kept informed and given information by the Registrar of Tribunals; She has been sent correspondence including by personal service, attempts have been made to contact her by telephone and she has not responded; She was warned in correspondence that the case could proceed in her absence if she continued not to engage; She was informed that if she did not have legal representation she could apply for ecclesiastical legal aid to support legal costs incurred in the proceedings; She has not responded to any correspondence, she has not challenged any evidence and has not produced any evidence in support of her case; She is not of course required to instruct a solicitor, she is entitled to represent herself, but she has not taken either course”. [3].

On 4 May 2026, The Marlpudlian – “The website for All Saints Church and the wider community” – posted “A Big Change at All Saints” in which it informed parishioners that “As of Tuesday 31st March 2026, the Revd Karen Padley is  no longer the vicar of All Saints church, nor is she priest-in-charge of the churches of St Lawrence Heanor, St Andrew’s Langley Mill and St John’s Aldercar”. It stated:

“Revd Karen Padley has been removed from office as Priest in Charge of St Lawrence Heanor, St Andrew Langley Mill, and St John Aldercar, and Vicar of All Saints Marlpool, by an Independent Tribunal established under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, and is prohibited from ministering as a priest in the Church of England for three years.

The result of this is that these parishes are now in vacancy. During this time the responsibility for the continuation of ministry is assumed by the Churchwardens and the Area Dean, together with the assisting clergy of the parishes, who will be fully supported by the Acting Archdeacon of East Derbyshire and colleagues in the Parish Support Team.

The Diocese of Derby has offered pastoral and practical support …at this time.”

No further details (have) been made available to us at this time However, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding or erroneous assumptions it can be stated that: This decision was NOT as the result of any safeguarding issue or financial impropriety on the part of [the former incumbent]” (emboldening and capitalization in original).

Legal Issues

The subsequent post Non-involvement with CDM proceeding (II) addresses the Tribunals considerations, which observed (at [16] of the Determination) “We have found the Respondent’s (i.e. the former incumbent’s) behaviour to be puzzling and in the face of many opportunities to act otherwise, to have been disappointing in one tasked with important duties in her role“. This post will cover whether the hearing could proceed in the absence of the former incumbent and whether to grant an application for the drawing of an adverse inference due to non-attendance.

Comment

The Marlpudlian article acknowledged the associated disquiet which is often generated in events such as this. It stated:

“As you can appreciate, this sudden removal of our vicar came as something as a shock to the All Saints congregation. To date, nothing beyond the above statement has been published so unsurprisingly rumours abound. Until the ruling is published on the Church of England website[1] there is nothing we can add to the above statement”.

[1] The timeline of events is uncertain. The Determination and  Penalty are dated 7 January 2026 and 31 March 2026, respectively, although this does not necessarily reflect when the documents were placed in the public domain; they were not included in the L&RUK monthly reviews up to and including April 2026. The Marlpudlian article is dated 4 May 2026 although it commences with “As of Tuesday 31st March 2026…”.

The independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges, chaired by Sir David Bell, has launched a call for evidence. It seeks views from people with relevant lived experience, knowledge or expertise of antisemitism in schools and colleges and will inform practical recommendations for the Department for Education and sector leaders on how effectively to prevent, identify and respond to antisemitism and other forms of hatred and prejudice.

You can submit evidence here. The call for evidence ends on 1 July.

Isle of Man: Assisted Dying Bill

As an update to our earlier post, we note that Manx Radio has now reported that the Ministry of Justice has decided that it is unable to recommend the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill for Royal Assent and that the Isle of Man Government has received a letter to that effect from the Secretary of State for Justice following departmental scrutiny of the legislation.

The Ministry of Justice had sought clarification of the arrangements for monitoring assisted deaths, safeguards against coercion and ensuring that individuals have capacity to make decisions and has concluded that, though the Manx Government has provided comprehensive assurances and commitments that would mitigate the legal risk significantly, they do not form part of the Bill. It is therefore the view of the UK Government that those matters must be addressed in order for the Bill to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to the reports, Tynwald is to debate a number of amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill in June, in the hope of bringing it into compliance with the ECHR.

Abortion services and safe access zones again

The BBC reports that Clive Johnstone, a former President of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, has been found guilty by Coleraine Magistrates’ Court of breaching abortion buffer zone laws by preaching near a hospital. He was convicted under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of, or being reckless as to whether it had, the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises. He was also found guilty of failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone. He was fined £450 for both offences.

BAILII has published the judgment here: we hope to produce a note later in the week. [With thanks to Sahida Khanom and David Lamming.]

The Council of Europe and religious discrimination

On 21 April, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 2647 (2026), Countering discrimination based on religion and protecting freedom of religion or belief in Europe. Inter alia, it calls on member states to collect data on intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion, to provide religious literacy training for public officials, law enforcement officers and the judiciary, to provide schoolteachers with training and guidance on religion based on a pluralist and inclusive approach, and to strengthen co-operation with media organisations to promote fair and accurate representation of religious beliefs. 

Ian Huntley: funeral arrangements

Although we have never reviewed the funeral arrangements for Ian Huntley, “the Soham Murderer“, his murder at maximum security HMP Frankland appears to have generated appreciable interest in our post concerning the scattering of Ian Brady’s ashes, for which many of the principles related to the funeral arrangements (possession of the body, the need for secrecy) appear to be similar. (See also Peter Collier’s comment below).

For closure on this story, which otherwise would have fallen outwith our ambit, we can report that on 9 May 2026, the Independent carried the story Soham murderer Ian Huntley cremated in £265 eco-friendly coffin as taxpayers pick up funeral tab. For the curious, the article gives details of the arrangements. 

(AI) Claudia

Evolutionary biologist and atheist writer Richard Dawkins has stirred debate over artificial intelligence after saying recent conversations with AI chatbot Claudia left him convinced they may possess some form of consciousness, even if they are unaware of it themselves. However, Prof Jonathan Birch, director at the London School of Economics’ Centre for Animal Sentience, has said that AI consciousness is “an illusion” and “there is no one there”, just a string of data-processing events that often occur in geographically different locations. In light of our recent experience with AI, we would concur with Professor Birch. At its present state of development, the strength of AI lies in its ability to access and synthesize existing material, and rephrase a wide range available knowledge

Quick links

• Hansard Society: The assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used?: the Hansard Society adds a note as follows: “Together, the 1911 and 1949 Acts are often referred to as the ‘Parliament Acts’. For clarity, however, this paper treats them collectively as a single framework, referring to them in the singular as the Parliament Act”, Page 9, para. 2. [But I can’t think why that would add clarity: FC.]
• Metropolitan Police: Met announces new dedicated Community Protection Team as further antisemitic hate crime arrests made this weekend.
• South Wales Police: Anthony Pierce: Appeal for victims to come forward, (7 May 2026).

Pleased to post below a link to the Mattone Center’s annual review for 2025-2026. Among the highlights: media productions, including podcasts and a video series on landmark cases in religious freedom; events, including international conferences and moot courts; and faculty scholarship. Thanks to everyone who has supported our activities–looking forward to next year!

https://t.e2ma.net/webview/imanfk/e675ed3ee68b1bd00f92234f8db7e2b3

The post 2025-2026 Year in Review appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

In this episode of Legal Spirits, I speak with Andrea Pin about his new book, Dignity in Judgment, and the role of human dignity in contemporary constitutional law. We explore competing understandings of dignity—a secular, autonomy-based view and a more communal conception influenced by religious traditions—and consider how courts choose between them. Along the way, we discuss why the secular view appears to dominate in practice and how judicial formation shapes the meaning of dignity in constitutional adjudication.

The post Legal Spirits 077: Dignity in Judgment appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

• Bishop James Massa, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, responded to Vice President Vance’s recent criticism of Pope Leo XIV’s Palm Sunday Homily, emphasizing that “When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ.”
• This week, the Justice Department Office of Legal Policy’s Weaponization Working Group published a 37-page report which concluded, in part, that “the Biden DOJ ‘engaged in biased enforcement of the FACE Act’ and ‘pursued more severe charges and significantly harsher sentences for peaceful pro-life defendants than violent pro-abortion defendants.'”
• In a press release following the final hearing of the President’s Religious Liberty Commission, Chairman Dan Patrick rejected the notion that the First Amendment requires a total separation of church and state.
• Ohio Attorney General David Yost has filed suit seeking to prevent Hebrew Union College (HUC) from closing its 150-year-old Cincinnati rabbinical school.
• The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home, a hospice care facility in New York, filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging New York’s requirements for care of transgender patients.
• On April 14th, a settlement was reached between the Coast Guard and three Coast Guard members who had brought a class action after they were denied religious exemptions from the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. Among other things, the Agreement requires the Coast Guard to remove references in personnel records of service members’ decision to remain unvaccinated.

The post Around the Web appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Human dignity is ubiquitous in contemporary constitutional law, yet its meaning varies across jurisdictions and even among judges. In a new essay at Emory’s Canopy Forum, I review my friend Andrea Pin’s new book, Dignity in Judgment, which challenges the conventional view that dignity is solely a secular, autonomy-based concept and highlights its religious and communal roots. While I agree with Andrea that dignity has multiple intellectual sources, I argue that courts today overwhelmingly rely on a secular understanding in practice. This convergence, I suggest, reflects the intellectual formation and shared legal culture of judges, who interpret dignity through familiar frameworks shaped by modern constitutionalism.

I’ll be interviewing Andrea about his book in an upcoming Legal Spirits podcast, so please stay tuned! Meanwhle, you can read the full review here.

The post Dignity and the Judges appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

• Vice President J.D. Vance spoke regarding growing tension between the U.S. military and religious leaders and the pushback against current US military operations in Iran.
• In Perry v. Marteney, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law in West Virginia that required vaccinations for public school students without religious exemptions.
• in Singh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, a case regarding the transfer of a Sikh Temple into a trust, the court held that the ‘neutral principles exception’ to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine can apply outside of church property cases.
• In Maniar v. Noem, a D.C. District Court dismissed a suit brought by a Pakistani-American couple who claimed that being placed on a Screening List at the airport violated their free exercise rights.
• In Johnson v. Fleming a Virginia federal district court dismissed Free Exercise claims regarding religious exclusions from a state tuition program.

The post Around the Web appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

In this short take, Mark Movsesian looks at the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision this week in Chiles v. Salazar, involving a Christian therapist who challenged Colorado’s ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors. Formally, Chiles is not a free exercise case. But religion is clearly in the background—a reminder that law-and-religion controversies are often worked out through the First Amendment’s speech protections. Listen in!

The post Legal Spirits 076: A Short Take on Chiles v. Salazar appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

• The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit by a Mississippi street preacher who claims that his arrest for demonstrating near an amphitheater violated his free speech and religious liberty rights. 
• A federal judge ordered immigration officials to allow clergy and religious workers access to detained migrants in Minneapolis, ruling that denying pastoral visits likely violated religious liberty protections. 
• The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court arguing that turning away migrants at the border is unlawful and inconsistent with the nation’s moral obligations. 
• Members of Congress introduced legislation that would protect the tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations from being revoked based on their views or speech. 
• India’s Maharashtra legislature passed a new anti-conversion law this week requiring advance notice before religious conversions and imposing criminal penalties for conversions obtained through coercion, fraud, or marriage. The law has drawn criticism from religious minority groups.

The post Around the Web appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

As I mentioned a few days ago, the Typepad platform (which has long hosted the Mirror of Justice blog) is shutting down. I am working on "exporting" -- and trying to save in a searchable and readable form -- our two-decades-worth of posts and conversations, and I will spare readers the gory details of my efforts to deal with those managing Typepad's disappearance. Please keep an eye on my Twitter/X account, or on the webpage of the Notre Dame Program on Church, State & Society, for updates and more information.

I am very grateful to the many colleagues and friends who have participated in this effort along the way. And, I'm grateful to the many tens of thousands of readers who have checked in, or followed us closely.  I'd like to "sign off" with just three quick items:

First, here is a short essay, called "The Sign of the Cross and Jurisprudence," which I've made available to my students in every class I've taught at Notre Dame since 1999. 

Second, here are three quotes, which I include on the front page of all my syllabi:

There are no ordinary people.

You have never talked to a mere mortal.

Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal,

and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.

But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit –

immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. 

            C.S. Lewis

 Abandonment of the rules produces monsters; so does neglect of persons.

            Judge John T. Noonan           

Gradually it was disclosed to me 

that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, 

nor between classes, nor between political parties either – 

but right through every human heart[.]

            Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Third, here is one of my very first MOJ posts, on a theme that, I fear, I came back to with irritating regularity:

One of our shared goals for this blog is to . . . "discover[] how our Catholic perspective can inform our understanding of the law." One line of inquiry that, in my view, is particularly promising -- and one that I know several of my colleagues have written and thought about -- involves working through the implications for legal questions of a Catholic "moral anthropology." By "moral anthropology," I mean an account of what it is about the human person that does the work in moral arguments about what we ought or ought not to do and about how we ought or ought not to be treated; I mean, in Pope John Paul II's words, the “moral truth about the human person."

The Psalmist asked, "Lord, what is man . . . that thou makest account of him?” (Ps. 143:3). This is not only a prayer, but a starting point for jurisprudential reflection. All moral problems are anthropological problems, because moral arguments are built, for the most part, on anthropological presuppositions. That is, as Professor Elshtain has put it, our attempts at moral judgment tend to reflect our “foundational assumptions about what it means to be human." Jean Bethke Elshtain, The Dignity of the Human Person and the Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries, 14 JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION 53, 53 (1999-2000). As my colleague John Coughlin has written, the "anthropological question" is both "perennial" and profound: "What does it mean to be a human being?” Rev. John J. Coughlin, Law and Theology: Reflections on What it Means to Be Human, 74 ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW 609, 609 (2000).

In one short article of mine, "Christian Witness, Moral Anthropology, and the Death Penalty," I explore the implications for the death penalty of a Catholic anthropology, one that emphasizes our "creaturehood" more than, say, our "autonomy." And, my friend Steve Smith (University of San Diego) has an paper out that discusses what a "person as believer" anthropology might mean for our freedom-of-religion jurisprudence that fleshes out excellent article. I wonder if any of my colleagues have any thoughts on these matters?

Our Lady, Mirror of Justice, pray for us!