| ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Faculty — Telecommunications installation — Proposal to install mobile telephone base station and aerials in church tower — Potential for use to transmit pornography from internet — Whether appropriate use of consecrated building — Necessity to balance public interest in benefits of mobile communications with protection of children and adults from inappropriate use — Whether risk of adults and children using equipment to access pornography — Whether public benefit outweighing risk — Whether faculty to be granted
In re St Peter and St Paul, Chingford
Arches Court of Canterbury: Cameron QC, Dean of the Arches, Kaye QC and Tattersall QC Chh: 14 August 2007
In carrying out the balancing exercise necessary in considering whether or not to grant a faculty for the installation of telecommunications equipment it was necessary to differentiate between the effect of the installation of equpipment on children and the effect on adults. Mobile phone operators had to ensure a reasonable response to countering the risk to children from pornography over the mobile phone network. In respect of the risk to adults, to bar something which would be of benefit to the public generally because there was a risk that some adults would be able to privately access material which many Christians and others deplored was to take an unbalance approach.
The Arches Court of Canterbury so held in a reserved judgment, allowing the appeal by the petitioners, QS4 Ltd and the rector and churchwardens of the parish of St Peter and St Paul Chingford (Reverend Tom Page, Ted Cooke and Gordon Hughes), against the decision of Pulman QC Ch given in October 2006 in the Chelmsford Consistory Court to refuse a faculty for the installation of a mobile telephone base station and antennae in the parish church tower to be operated by a single mobile phone company, T-Mobile, for the purposes of their 3G network coverage. Stephen Turner, a resident of the parish, was the party opponent to the petition. The chancellor had refused the faculty on the grounds that some of the material to be transmitted through the antennae was not consistent with the use of the church as a place of Christian worship and that it was no part of the work or the mission of the church to facilitate the transmission of pornography whether from the internet or privately created, whether lawful or unlawful.
CAMERON QC, Dean of the Arches, giving the judgment of the court, said that the task of the chancellor was to conduct a balancing exercise taking into account all relevant factors, bearing in mind that the church had to be treated in a reverent and seemly manner consistent with its use as a place of worship. A cautious approach needed to be adopted in permitting something which might reflect adversely on the Church and such safeguards as were reasonable and proper had to be put in place. The chancellor, in reaching his decision, had not heard evidence on the filtering techniques available to prevent unlawful and inappropriate transmission of material by mobile telephone and had not therefore taken into account all the relevant factors in reaching his decision and it had therefore been appropriate for the Arches Court to hear expert evidence, examine further documentation and consider whether a faculty should be granted. In balancing the relevant factors it was necessary to note that the 3G technology was different from the 2G technology in that it enabled fast access to the internet and so the case law which dealt with 2G mobile phones was not of particular assistance in relation to a petition for a faculty in relation to the use of 3G mobile phones. In relation to the application it was necessary to differentiate between the effect of the installation of equipment on children and the effect on adults. The major consideration was the risk to children from using a mobile phone to access pornography on the internet. The mobile phone operators had introduced filtering techniques for those under 18 and there was continuous monitoring of websites by the Internet Watch Foundation. Those steps were a reasonable and welcome public response to counter the risk to children. Furthermore it was incumbent on parents and teachers to educate children in the use of the internet; a cautious parent could place a block on the use of the internet on their child’s mobile phone. As far as adults were concerned the risk was that some adults benefitting from the improved transmission in the Chingford area might somewhere use a mobile phone to access pornography which was not classed as unlawful by the criminal law. To bar something which would be of benefit to the public generally because there was a risk that some would be able privately to access material which many Christians and others deplored, was to take an unbalanced approach. The appeal would therefore be allowed and a faculty granted subject to conditions.
|
