Following a brief history and explanation of the extent and role of the faculty jurisdiction, the article considers various reviews of its working, and that of the ecclesiastical exemption, starting with the Report of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission in 1984 and the Newman Report in 1997. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated in 2005 that the operation of the ecclesiastical exemption would be monitored periodically, and in 2010 that it would be kept under review to ensure the required standards of protection were maintained. The article argues that a no-holds-barred review of the faculty system would now be appropriate, with a view to achieving a less cumbrous structural apparatus, with a markedly less restrictive approach to changes within unlisted churches and a more rigorous and expert approach to changes affecting listed churches.

In the light of the abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church, several inquiries have given recommendations on what should be done in the future, to ensure that such crimes are dealt with both civilly and canonically. In 2017, the Royal Commission of Australia produced a number of specific points to be addressed. Two years later, Pope Francis introduced guidelines to be observed universally whenever cases are reported, and these addressed many of the commission's recommendations. A question remains as to whether these have gone too far or far enough.

Considering the importance of their role in the life of the Church of England and the Church in Wales, there is not much written about the role of archdeacons. In her recent article in the January 2019 issue of this Journal, Jane Steen focused on the legal aspect of the role of archdeacons, and reflected on how they play a key role in shaping the Church and its ministry, delighting in its beauty and rejoicing in its well-being. In this article, the recently retired training, development and support officer for archdeacons reflects on the nature of the role and, in the light of that, on the way in which it might best be carried out. Believing that process is at least as important as outcome, and that good processes lead to better outcomes, he argues that coaching provides a useful model to enable archdeacons to exercise their ministries most effectively and promote both the mission and the well-being of the Church. It is also, he argues, a better reflection of Anglican theology.

When it was being introduced, there was a concern that the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 would be a ‘complainant's charter’. While there was a marked increase in complaints after it came into force, this article argues that this concern was on the whole unfounded and as a result complainants have benefited. However, the Measure has had a damaging effect on respondents to the extent that reforming or replacing it is inevitable. It is argued that the current regime is potentially unfair in terms of common law and ECHR requirements to a fair trial. Therefore, any reform or replacement of the current regime must both be legally fair and also address its negative pastoral impact on respondents.

During the COVID-19 lockdown the initial British Government mantra of ‘Stay home. Protect the NHS. Save lives’, the ritualistic weekly public clapping for the National Health Service (NHS) and the overall tone of the media coverage led several commentators to raise the question of whether the NHS had become a religion. This question is legally significant. The question of whether the lockdown breached Article 9 has already been the subject of litigation. R (on the application of Hussain) v Secretary of State for Health [2020] EWHC 1392 (Admin) concerned the then prohibition on private prayer in places of worship. Swift J refused an application for interim relief to allow Friday prayers at Barkerend Road Mosque. Lockdown did infringe the claimant's Article 9 rights but this interference was only with one aspect of religious observance and the interference had a finite duration. The legitimate difference of opinion between the claimant and the British Board of Scholars and Imams was relevant to the question of justification. There was no real prospect that the claimant would succeed at obtaining a permanent injunction at trial because the pandemic presented ‘truly exceptional circumstances’ that meant that the interference would be justified on grounds of public health. Swift J was satisfied that there was a sufficiently arguable case to grant permission to apply for judicial review but he did not order that the claim be expedited. In Dolan, Monks and AB v Secretary of State for Health [2020] EWHC 1786 (Admin), an application of a judicial review of the lockdown regulations and schools closure was refused. However, in relation to Article 9, Lewis J adjourned consideration of this discrete issue because regulations had just been made that allowed communal worship which may have made the argument academic. English law provides the right to manifest religion or belief under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief in relation to employment and the provision of goods and services under the Equality Act 2010. This raises the point: during the lifting of lockdown, when authorities require people to go back to their workplace or send their children to school, could individuals who refuse say they were legally entitled to decline on the basis that such a requirement breached their belief in protecting the NHS?

Religious education is probably one of the most attractive topics in law and religious studies – a truly bottomless pit which, every now and then, reveals new questions and new challenges. The most recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning this matter is the one delivered on 31 October 2019 in the case of Papageorgiou and others. The judgment only became final at the end of January 2020, under Article 44(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), so as yet it has not received much scholarly attention. However, it should be expected that there will be no lack of such attention, as the judgment deserves it for at least two reasons.

Much of the period under review was dominated by the impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Advice both from the Government and from the Churches was at first fairly muted. On 10 February the Government introduced the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, which applied to England only and which made provision for detention for screening for the virus under certain conditions and imposing restrictions on individuals to limit the risk of those with the infection contaminating others; however, at the same time, the Prime Minister was urging people to remain ‘confident and calm’. Similarly, an Ad Clerum on hygiene at Holy Communion issued by the Bishop of Peterborough on 20 February deprecated the practices of intinction and of receiving the bread directly on to the tongue but did not recommend the ending of communion in both kinds.