The chancellor held a hearing in relation to a petition for a confirmatory faculty for a memorial illegally erected over a grave in the churchyard. The petitioners were the partner and son of the deceased. In the petition the petitioners had inserted only their own details when asked to give the names and addresses of all known close relatives of the deceased and whether, to the knowledge of the petitioners, each was aware of and supported the petition. In the course of the hearing it became clear that there were, in fact, three daughters of the deceased about whom the chancellor had no information. It transpired that the first petitioner was facing criminal charges of rape, indecent assault and incest against the daughters and had bail conditions in place which prevented him from having any contact with them. The chancellor adjourned the hearing pending consultation with the daughters, giving interim directions for the removal of the illegal memorial by the stonemason (who had been joined as a party) and its safe storage at his premises until determination of the petition.
Subsequently, the stonemason did not remove the memorial as directed but rather one of the petitioners smashed the memorial with a sledgehammer in the presence of the local press, indicating that the Court had required him to do so. The petitioners subsequently made an application to withdraw the petition. In that application they offered to pay a contribution of £1,000 of the £2,600 court costs and argued that the stonemason should pay the balance as he was to blame for the situation. The chancellor held that the petitioners’ conduct, which included misleading the court, had been primarily responsible for increasing the costs. He acknowledged an honest mistake on the part of the stonemason that may have increased costs by a modest amount and ordered that the stonemason pay £250 in costs. The balance was payable by the petitioners. The chancellor also made clear that the stonemason had been in contempt of court in not removing the memorial as directed. He decided not to refer the matter to the High Court for sanction, but rather made it a condition of the withdrawal that the stonemason and his firm were required to show cause why they should not be disbarred for a period of twelve months from undertaking works in consecrated ground within the diocese of Chichester. [RA]
