At a hearing to determine four petitions in relation to the same churchyard, the chancellor had refused a faculty for the erection of a memorial over the grave of the applicants' son and granted one for the reservation of the adjoining gravespaces for the applicants. He stated that the reservation and any future permission for a headstone would be conditional upon no unauthorised items or memorials being placed on the grave or reserved gravespaces. The proposed memorial was outside the diocesan churchyard regulations in a number of respects, including the size, material and shape of the headstone, the inclusion of kerbs and the use of an etched photograph and coloured paint. After the refusal the memorial was unlawfully erected in the churchyard. The chancellor adjourned the hearing of the archdeacon's application for the removal of the memorial to enable the applicants to seek leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Arches and to seek a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 in the High Court. Upon the applicants' application to the Court of Arches the Dean approved the chancellor's decision to hear the four petitions at the same hearing as ‘eminently sensible’. He rejected the argument that the chancellor's decision breached Article 8 of the ECHR and, in referring to Chapman v UK (2001) 3 EHRR 18, he held that the use of a particular design of memorial was not required to ‘facilitate the gypsy way of life’. The Dean further rejected the submission that the imposition of conditions in relation to the leaving of unauthorised items was discriminatory or draconian. He refused leave to appeal on the basis that there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. [RA]
No CrossRef data available.