The petitioner sought a faculty to permit inscription on both sides of a headstone at the grave of her son. This was expressly prohibited by the diocesan churchyard rules. Although it was noted that there were several headstones within the churchyard with inscriptions on both sides, bad practice in the past could not dictate good practice in the present and future. The rule against inscriptions on both sides of a headstone was both reasonable and proportionate. The question in this case was, therefore, whether there was sufficient reason for excepting the present proposal from the general rule against double-sided inscriptions. The chancellor found that there were sufficient exceptional circumstances to allow the general prohibition on inscriptions on both sides of a memorial to be relaxed in this case. The verse sought to be inscribed was of peculiar significance to the petitioner and her family in the case of the very tragic death of her son. It had also recently been discovered that the grave itself was double-depth and intended for another burial in due time. This meant that there would be insufficient space both for the details of another occupant and for the verse proposed for the rear of the petitioner's son's headstone. The chancellor granted the faculty sought. [Jonathan Storey]