The petitioners wished to give a wrought-iron artefact, believed to be part of a sword or weaving batten, to a local museum. It had been unearthed during the excavation of a grave in a recently acquired annex to the graveyard. As it contained no gold or silver, it was not treasure trove and the Treasure Act 2006 was not engaged.

The item, once unearthed, was a movable good, and therefore vested in the churchwardens for the time being – who were, with the incumbent, the petitioners. The consent of the Parochial Church Council was also required for the disposal of the item and this was evidenced in the present case. Rule 9(6)(1) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 required that the view of the Church Buildings Council (CBC) be sought on any petition involving the disposal of an article of special historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest; the CBC did not wish to comment.

The court also considered the guidance of the Court of Arches on the disposal of ‘church treasures’, summarised in Hill, Ecclesiastical Law (fourth edition) at para 7(110), to the effect that a petition for such a disposal should seldom be granted without a hearing and without some special reason being shown. ‘Church treasure’ was defined by the Court of Arches in re St John the Baptist, Penshurst (2015) 17 Ecc LJ 393 as ‘articles of particular (or special) historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest falling within the faculty jurisdiction’. The present item fell within that description. However, the court considered that something more was required before an item could sensibly be classified as ‘church treasure’. The item had no ecclesiastical or liturgical purpose or function, and was not related to worship or devotion; it was only church property through the fortuity of the churchyard extension.

The court distinguished the present case from the appellate case of re St Lawrence, Oakley with Wootton St Lawrence [2015] Fam 27 (2014) 16 Ecc LJ 394, Ct of Arches, and noted that not every item belonging to the church, even if of some historic, artistic or other value, was a church treasure (see, for example, re St James the Great, Flockton [2016] ECC Lee 4 (2017) 19 Ecc LJ 119). In the circumstances, the court considered that the church was a less suitable and less accessible location for the item than the local museum and granted the faculty as sought. [DW]