No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
In defence of the Chancellor: a personal perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 May 2024
Extract
The origins of this comment lie in Charles George KC's article: ‘Do we still need the faculty system?’1 which came towards the end of his tenure of office as Dean of the Arches and Auditor (2009–2020). George himself acknowledged that his conclusion, namely that a no-holds-barred review of the faculty system would now be appropriate, might come as ‘rather a surprise’ and that some might have expected his answer to his own question to be in the affirmative: namely, that we do still need a faculty system.
- Type
- Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2024
References
1 George, C, ‘Do we still need the faculty system?’ (2020) 22 Ecc LJ 281Google Scholar.
2 It came as possibly less of a surprise to me than to others that Charles had asked this question. Apart from the kindness and encouragement Charles has given me personally, and the help and support he has given to all of us despite an incredibly heavy workload, what has always drawn me to him is his astonishing intellect combined with an equally extraordinary modesty and humility. Anyone that has ever sat on a committee or working party with him will recognise my picture. He sits quietly most of the time listening carefully until his opinion is sought. He raises a finger and will say ‘just one small point’ and will then mention the single most vital thing that we had all collectively not considered. His mind is eternally curious and meticulously analytical. As I say, therefore, I was not surprised.
3 In the matter of the Rustat Memorial, Jesus College, Cambridge [2022] ECC Ely 2.
4 Higton, M, ‘Revisiting the Rustat Case’, Third Biannual Report of the Archbishop's Commission for Racial Justice (Summer 2023), 59–70Google Scholar. See also Re St Giles, Exhall (Conradh na Gaelige I Londain intervening) [2021] PTSR 1622; [2021] EACC 1 on a different but related issue.
5 J Berry, ‘Recent Developments in Contested Heritage’, Third Biannual Report (ibid), 25–27.
6 The report is available at: <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/rjr3_digital-final-version.pdf>, accessed 7 February 2024.
7 George (note 1), 282.
8 Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022, r 2.
9 Re St Edmund, Kessingland [2020] ECC Nor 4.
10 Vincent v Eyton [1897] P 1.
11 cf. KC, M Ellis, ‘“Juristecture” and the regulation of normative space’ (2024) 26 Ecc LJ 129–146Google Scholar, at 130–131.
12 Outhwaite, R, The Rise and Fall of the Ecclesiastical Courts 1500–1860 (Cambridge, 2006), 168–169Google Scholar.
13 Unreported.
14 HC Deb 7 February 1856, vol 140 c388.
15 Phillimore, R, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (London, 1873)Google Scholar.
16 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, s 14A(1).
17 See <https://www.churchofengland.org/about/our-churches>, accessed 15 February 2024.
18 Ibid.
19 The Taylor Review: Sustainability of English Churches and Cathedrals (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2018) 11, available at: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a829d3840f0b62305b93708/Taylor_Review_Final.pdf>, accessed 15 February 2024.
20 See <www.methodist.org.uk/statistics>, accessed 7 February 2024.
21 See <https://historicengland.org.uk/research/current/discover-and-understand/faith-and-commemoration/roman-catholic-heritage/>, accessed 7 February 2024.
22 See further 19th- and 20th Century Roman Catholic Churches: Introductions to Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2017), available at: <https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-19th-20th-century-roman-catholic-churches/heag159-roman-catholic-churches-iha/>, accessed 15 February 2024.
23 See <https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220484/Who_are_Baptists.aspx>, accessed 15 February 2024.
24 See <https://urc.org.uk/who-we-are/what-is-the-urc/>, accessed 15 February 2024. I have also omitted a number of different Christian denominations for the sake of brevity alone.
25 cf. George (note 1), 297–298.
26 Ellis (note 11), 144.
27 Re St Margaret, Rottingdean (No 2) [2021] ECC Chi 1.
28 In the Matter of Dorchester, St Peter, Holy Trinity and All Saints [2022] ECC Sal 4.
29 Sutton, T, ‘Contested Heritage and the Consistory Courts’ (2023) 25 Ecc LJ 171Google Scholar. See also Taylor, A, ‘The Case of the Rustat Memorial – Does Duffield Pose all the Right Questions?’ (2023) 25 Ecc LJ 38Google Scholar.
30 George (note 1), 289.
31 George (note 1), 290.
32 Ibid, 293–297.
33 George acknowledges his own concern that the ‘analysis of claimed need for change is generally more thorough in the case of secular buildings, leading to greater protection for secular listed buildings than is afforded by the faculty system to churches’ is a ‘hunch (not informed by detailed study of comparable instances)’: ibid, 297.
34 George (note 1), 296.
35 cf. Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015, Part 4.
36 In Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158.
37 cf. Ellis (note 11), at 139–142.
38 cf. George (note 1), 290.