The petitioners sought a faculty to permit the filming within the church of a sequel to two horror films: 28 Days and 28 Weeks After. The sequel was to portray ‘a post-apocalyptic world in which people are largely infected by a “rage” virus which leads them to violence’. Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle was to direct the film, and it would star Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer, Jack O’Connell and Ralph Fiennes. A PCC member objected and, although not wishing to become a party opponent, asked for her views to be taken into account; the court observed that this was ‘not an unopposed petition’. Further, the Archdeacon of Lindisfarne had formed the preliminary view that the film’s subject-matter rendered filming in a church potentially inappropriate and had counselled the parishes in her Archdeaconry against allowing it. The Statement of Need drew attention to the past use of the church for an episode of the ITV drama Vera and gave examples of filming in other churches ‘involving murder, science fiction, fantasy and horror’, the consequences of which had been ‘broadly positive’ – but also recognised that ‘there will be a small number of people who disagree with the use of sacred spaces for this purpose’.

Under Canon F15 (Of churches not to be profaned), ‘The churchwardens and their assistants shall not suffer the church or chapel to be profaned by any meeting therein for temporal objects inconsistent with the sanctity of the place, nor the bells to be rung at any time contrary to the direction of the minister’. Canon F16 (Of plays, concerts, and exhibitions of films and pictures in churches) mandates that ‘When any church or chapel is to be used for a play, concert, or exhibition of films or pictures, the minister shall take care that the words, music, and pictures are such as befit the House of God, are consonant with sound doctrine, and make for the edifying of the people’.

The sole objector protested the unfairness of a process whereby the PCC had only become aware of the proposal on being told that the churchwarden had signed a non-disclosure agreement, which meant that he could not discuss the details of the film. She argued that filming in the church would be damaging for the Church of England in the long term; that the financial incentive was particularly powerful and inappropriate; and that she did not believe that ‘God would want his buildings to be so used for such ghastly events’. The petitioners replied that no evidence had been offered to support the assertion that the Church would be damaged, that the fee had not been the driving force, and that the film’s production company had offered to show the objector a synopsis and, if necessary, script pages. The archdeacons had carried out a review of the (confidential) script, concluding that ‘the content and language of the proposed scenes were disrespectful of Christian theology and practice’, and the Diocesan Advisory Committee supported their objections.

The question for the court was whether the petitioners had satisfied it on the simple balance of probabilities that the proposed secular use of St Mary’s was ‘consistent with its consecrated, sacred nature’. Nothing suggested that the new film was going to be materially different from its predecessors and

Although only one objection had been received, it chimed with the theological view offered to and accepted by the DAC. Although reasonable people might hold differing views, there was ‘a powerful and well-supported opinion that the scene is intrinsically objectionable in its own right and that, regardless of the wider context, it would be inappropriate to permit it to take place’. The court was satisfied that the scene in question was objectionable on its own terms. The application was refused.