The petitioners wished to erect a black granite headstone in memory of their parents. This fell outside the diocesan churchyard regulations and had been refused by the incumbent. The incumbent had also written a letter of objection in response to the present petition, on the basis that the churchyard regulations did not permit the proposed memorial. However, the chancellor noted that previous incumbents had permitted the erection of such granite memorials despite the regulations; it would be unreasonable, and would appear discriminatory, to refuse the present petition. A faculty would, therefore, be issued.

The court took the opportunity to set out some matters of principle. It appeared that the Parochial Church Council (PCC) had regarded the regulations as a statement of policy guiding an exercise of discretion; having adopted that policy, they regarded themselves as bound by it in the present case. However, it was not in the gift of the PCC or the incumbent to allow the proposed memorial. Every memorial required permission; the churchyard regulations, made by the chancellor, simply set out parameters within which the incumbent might give that permission. If the proposed memorial did not fall within those parameters, the incumbent had no authority to permit it and any purported permission in those circumstances was of no effect. The proposed memorial could only be authorised by faculty. If one was granted, the chancellor was not thereby ‘breaking’ the regulations but simply exercising judgment in a matter which the incumbent had no authority to deal with. [DW]