The Petitioners sought a faculty for the removal of a memorial to Dr John Gordon, a slave owner who died travelling through the parish on his way back to Jamaica. The petition proposed the removal of the memorial from a prominent position within the church and its relocation of the memorial to Dorset County Museum, situated next door to the church. The petition was brought as a result of concerns arising from the wording on the memorial. The inscription described Dr Gordon's pivotal role in the quelling of a rebellion of enslaved black people in Jamaica. It included, in capitals, an offensive word used to dehumanise black people.

The inscription on the memorial had been the subject of negative comments from visitors to the church, long before the murder of George Floyd brought the topic of racism back to social and international consciousness. Notwithstanding, it was acknowledged that the resultant rise of global anti-racism in 2020 had provided renewed momentum to find a resolution to the issue of the memorial.

In accordance with section 66(1)(b) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, the petitioners’ ‘reasonable efforts’ to find a direct descendent of John Gordon in order to identify a living owner of the memorial had been unsuccessful.

The court undertook an inspection visit to the church and, having considered the preference of the petitioners, determined the matter by way of written representations. Representations were made by the Church Buildings Council, Historic England, the Georgian Group, the Ancient Monuments Society and Dorset Council. The Chancellor also considered a letter of objection from two parishioners, as well as the views of John Gordon's wider group of descendants.

The memorial held some significance as an ornate neo-classical wall monument of the mid-to-late 18th century. However, its special significance and value was as a record of historical events: a major uprising of enslaved people, rarely recorded elsewhere. The memorial's historical importance was high.

Applying the Duffield Guidelines the court found as follows:

1. 1. The removal of the memorial after 250 years would cause some harm to the significance of the Grade I listed building.

2. 2. The harm caused to the significance of the building would be less than substantial. This is because the harm caused would be mitigated by the installation of a replacement plaque commemorating John Gordon and his burial and the provision of information within the church about where the memorial can be inspected. This would preserve the link between the memorial and the church. In contrast, the harm caused to the significance of the memorial itself would be moderate due to its removal from its physical context and likely removal from permanent public display.

3. 3. The justification for removal relied on by the petitioners was threefold:

   1. a. The continued presence of the memorial in the church was harmful to the mission and message of the church;

   2. b. The memorial created a significant obstacle to the church's ability to provide credible Christian ministry and welcome; and

   3. c. The memorial damaged the pastoral life of the church.

   In finding the justification for removal clear and convincing, the court considered the presence of the memorial in the church implied continued support, or at least toleration and acceptance, of discrimination and oppression. Regard was given to the fourth Mark of Mission of the Anglican Communion, namely to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation. The retention of the memorial presented a significant barrier to the fulfilment of that calling.

4. 4. Balancing the public benefit and the harm caused, and in so doing, having regard to the Church Buildings Council published guidance on the issue of contested heritage in church buildings, the option of ‘no change’ was an inadequate resolution. Contextualising and interpreting the memorial in situ would not adequately address the needs of the petitioners to proclaim afresh the Gospel in this generation. This was because the tone and content of the memorial was explicitly and fundamentally contrary to the message of inclusion and welcome at the heart of the Mission Action Plan of St Peter's. The relocation of the memorial to the adjacent museum was the preferred option as it would be properly preserved (thereby safeguarding its value), whilst providing a more appropriate location for the telling of its history. In this regard, the public benefit would be substantial comparative to the moderate harm caused by removal.

A faculty was granted subject to a number of conditions. [Naomi Gyane]