The churchyard at this medieval church was closed by an Order in Council dated 1 May 1855. On 2 August 1956 a faculty was issued authorising the use of ‘a suitable portion of the churchyard for the interment of ashes of the dead (such persons having been members of the congregation of Holy Trinity Coventry aforesaid)’. On 23 June 2007 the Parochial Church Council (PCC) passed a resolution implementing a policy – applied ever since, and for reasons relating to the churchyard's relatively small size – which restricted the interment of cremation ashes in the churchyard to those of people on the electoral roll at the time of their death and whose names had been on the roll continuously for at least the last ten years. No further memorial stones were permitted, but existing stones could be replaced in the event of further interments in the same plot.

In this case the petitioner sought a faculty for the interment of his wife's cremated remains in a new plot, with a simple memorial at the point of interment. The petitioner's wife had been on the church's electoral roll for three years, but the petitioner himself had been born in the parish, his great-grandfather and mother had been baptised, confirmed and married in the church, the family had worshipped there for many years, and members of the family were buried in the churchyard, with the burials marked by memorials. The incumbent and PCC were content for the petitioner's wife's remains to be interred in the plot already containing the remains of the petitioner's own parents, and for that interment to be on the footing that the petitioner's own remains would in time be interred in the same plot. They were also content for the existing memorial on that plot to be replaced by a memorial commemorating the petitioner's wife as well as her parents-in-law. But they contended that if her remains were interred in a separate plot then there should be no memorial at that point, in line with the PCC's policy. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended approval of the petition.

Reviewing the PCC's policy on interments, the chancellor had serious doubts as to its appropriateness, given that it imposed a restriction greater than that in the 1956 faculty. The legal position in respect of open churchyards – namely that provided that there was space in a churchyard at the time when interment was sought then all parishioners, all those who were on the electoral roll at the date of their death and all those who died in the parish had a right to be interred in the churchyard – was an indication that it was not open to the PCC or incumbent to impose restrictions over and above those set out in the faculty. Furthermore, the policy appeared to overlook the fact that a person who was not resident in a parish but who sought to be on the electoral roll was obliged to declare that he or she had ‘habitually attended public worship in the parish during a period of six months prior to enrolment’ (Church Representation Rules 1(2)(b) and (c)). It followed that for non-parishioners admission to the electoral roll was limited to those who had already participated in the worship of the church and had done so habitually for a period of time. The Church Representation Rules did not distinguish between those on the electoral roll and did not give different rights to those who had been on the roll for a period of time from those who had just joined. Such a division would be questionable theologically and might be thought to amount to an attempt to create different grades of church member. At the very least these matters meant that the PCC's policy could carry little weight to the extent that it purported to impose such restrictions.

Reviewing the law governing the erection of memorials, the chancellor concluded that he had the power to grant a faculty authorising the proposed memorial at the point of the interment of the cremated remains in a new plot, notwithstanding the opposition of the incumbent and the PCC and notwithstanding the policy adopted in 2007. But where a PCC had after proper consideration adopted a reasonable policy opposing the introduction of further memorials, very considerable weight was to be given to such a policy, such that, although the court retained a discretion, a petitioner seeking a memorial inconsistent with such a policy would need to show that his or her case was exceptional in some way.

In this case the PCC's policy, including its prohibition on new memorials, was, although not intrinsically unreasonable, influenced by a mistaken understanding of the law and exceeded the powers of the incumbent and PCC. It followed that some weight was to be given to the PCC's policy, but that weight was reduced and this was not one of those cases where exceptional circumstances were needed to justify the court authorising a memorial contrary to that policy. The balancing exercise was therefore not easy. There was considerable force in the competing contentions on both sides, but the long-standing connection which the petitioner and his family had with the church and the nature of that connection justified the grant of a faculty. This was particularly so when the weight to be attached to the policy of the PCC was weakened. [Jonathan Storey]