Liverpool Consistory Court: Hamilton Ch, November 2001
The cremated remains of a young man were interred in the parish Garden of Remembrance and marked with a flat memorial stone consistent with others in the area of the churchyard. Without the knowledge of the incumbent or PCC and without authority of a faculty this memorial was replaced with a contrasting stone containing a raised oval roundel bearing a good quality photograph of the deceased. In ordering the removal of the stone and its replacement with a stone conforming to the general style of the Garden of Remembrance the chancellor referred to and supported the clearly stated policy of the parish that memorials must conform to the requirements of the parish, including ease of mowing. The stone bearing the photograph did not comply with this policy. Furthermore, the photographic roundel was of a more fragile material than other stones and might be damaged in the course of mowing the area. The chancellor was concerned that such damage would cause distress to the family. Speaking generally he noted that in 'the current litigious mood' some individuals might sue a parish if their stone was damaged in this way.
(2002) 6 Ecc LJ 414-415
