‘A Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation in Manchester has lost a legal attempt to block an investigation into its handling of sexual abuse allegations, after failing to convince a judge that the inquiry amounted to religious discrimination.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘he UK’s main Jehovah’s Witnesses charity has dropped efforts to block an investigation into how it handled allegations of sexual abuse, including of children, after a legal fight lasting more than two years.’
The Guardian, 2r3d January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Prime Minister Theresa May has promised to introduce wide-ranging social reforms to correct what she calls the “burning injustices” in modern society.’
BBC News, 8th January 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v Charity Commission was striking from many points of view. Mr Kennedy was a journalist frustrated by the way the Commission handled his allegations concerning George Galloway MP’s controversial Iraq charity, the Miriam Appeal. He applied for disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, arguing that a prohibition from disclosure under s 32 should be interpreted compatibly with Article 10, as required by s 3 of the HRA. However, the Supreme Court declined to follow the recent ECtHR case law, holding that Article 10 did not encompass a right of access to information, deprecating the parties’ failure to rely upon the common law right to information and disagreeing over the question of whether proportionality should replace Wednesbury unreasonableness: see my previous post on this here.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th December 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation is under increasing pressure to address its handling of sexual abuse allegations as it faces legal setbacks, bills of over £1m and a fight to prevent the Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims.’
The Guardian, 12th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A charity run by Didier Drogba is being investigated over “serious regulatory concerns” by the Charity Commission.’
BBC News, 14th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Following three trials of former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’s congregations on charges of historic sex abuse the Charity Commission decided to initiate a statutory inquiry relating to a leading Jehovah’s Witness charity’s safeguarding policy regarding vulnerable beneficiaries in particular children, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, and to order the charity to produce a wide range of documents, under section 52 of the Act, even though none of those accused was connected with the charity. .The applicants, the charity and its trustees, sought judicial review of those decisions, on the grounds that (i) the commission had acted disproportionately by commencing an inquiry the scope of which was vague and undefined and by interfering with the applicants’ Convention rights, and had thereby breached its duty to act fairly so that the decision was irrational; and (ii) the scope of the production order was disproportionate in that information was sought of a personal and sensitive nature, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was furthermore in breach of the Convention rights of individuals affected. The judge in refusing permission to proceed with the judicial review clain held that the applicants had an effective statutory remedy by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity) against a decision to initiate an inquiry, and that any complaint relating to the breadth of a production order could be dealt with before that tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 15th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘More than a quarter of the statutory investigations that have been launched by the Charity Commission since April 2012 and remain open have targeted Muslim organisations, an analysis by the Guardian can reveal – drawing criticism from Islamic groups that they are being unfairly singled out.’
The Guardian, 16th November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Where a charitable trust held donations intended for other charities nominated by members of the public, and there was a shortfall between the funds held by the charitable trust and the donations, it was just and appropriate to treat the unpaid charities as participants in a common misfortune brought about by the management of the donation scheme. Those charities should bear that burden equally as to the distribution of the remaining funds.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where a charitable trust held donations intended for other charities nominated by members of the public, and there was a shortfall between the funds held by the charitable trust and the donations, it was just and appropriate to treat the unpaid charities as participants in a common misfortune brought about by the management of the donation scheme. Those charities should bear that burden equally as to the distribution of the remaining funds.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Following the Supreme Court’s lengthy, slightly unexpected, and difficult to grasp judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 (on which I have been quiet because of my involvement, but see Tom Cross’s blogpost here) there has been room for quite a large amount of debate as to how far it goes. Was the majority only suggesting access to the Charity Commission’s information under the common law principle of open justice applied because of the particular statutory regime and/or the nature of the statutory inquiry involved? Or was the principle rather more wide-ranging?’
Panopticon, 20th May 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘On 26 March 2014 the Supreme Court gave a lengthy judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, running to 248 paragraphs. The Supreme Court decision is full of surprises. The Court decided to depart from the arguments of the parties- the majority insisted that common law rights rather than the Human Rights Act were the key to the case; and then embarked on an extended and wide ranging obiter discussion of public law issues, revealing further disagreements between the Justices.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th April 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
Kennedy (Appellant) v The Charity Commission (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 20 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th March 2014
‘The Freedom of Information Act 2000 did not provide an exhaustive scheme in respect of the disclosure of information held by the Charity Commission relating to inquiries which they conducted. Although an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of that 2000 Act from disclosure under that Act lasted beyond the completion of such an inquiry, the question whether disclosure of information relating to such an inquiry was available would be governed by the Charities Act 1993, as substituted by the Charities Act 2006, construed in the light of common law principles.’
WLR Daily, 26th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court’s much anticipated judgments in Kennedy v The Charity Commission make for a long read. But they are very important. All the parties in Kennedy were represented by Counsel from 11KBW: Andrew Sharland for Mr Kennedy; Karen Steyn and Rachel Kamm for the Charity Commission and the Secretary of State; Ben Hooper for the ICO; and Christopher Knight for the Media Legal Defence Initiative and Campaign for Freedom of Information.’
Panopticon, 28th March 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Kennedy v. Charity Commission et al, Supreme Court, 26 March 2014. In judgments running to 90 pages, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal by Mr Kennedy, a Times journalist, for access to documents generated by the Charity Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning three inquiries between 2003 and 2005 into the Mariam Appeal. This appeal was George Galloway’s response to the sanctions imposed on Iraq following the first Gulf War, and little Mariam was a leukaemia sufferer. Mr Kennedy’s suspicion, amongst others, was that charitable funds had been used by Galloway for political campaigning.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Charity Commission is not “fit for purpose” and has persistently failed to tackle abuses of charitable status properly, MPs have said.’
BBC News, 5th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The head of the Charity Commission has admitted it cannot fully police all 160,000 organisations on its register.”
BBC News, 9th July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Charity Commission’s handling of a high-profile tax-avoidance scandal that saw shockingly little donated money reach good causes has put charities at risk of losing the public’s confidence – and consequently their money, one of the leading figures in the sector has warned.”
The Independent, 8th May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The RSPCA, Britain’s biggest animal welfare charity, has been officially asked to review its prosecution policies by the charities regulator after it spent hundreds of thousands of pounds bringing a prosecution against David Cameron’s local hunt.”
Daily Telegraph, 28th January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024