{"id":80451,"date":"2017-04-05T08:33:48","date_gmt":"2017-04-05T08:33:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?guid=ad818448286060d7c3511241be75e1cf"},"modified":"2017-04-05T08:33:48","modified_gmt":"2017-04-05T08:33:48","slug":"press-release-charity-commission-welcomes-renewed-court-victory-over-safeguarding-investigation-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?p=80451","title":{"rendered":"Press release: Charity Commission welcomes renewed court victory over safeguarding investigation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Charity Commission has welcomed an Upper Tribunal judgment<\/a> dismissing an appeal against its decision to investigate a charity over safeguarding concerns.<\/p>\n

The regulator placed Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (charity number 1065201 – \u2018the charity\u2019) under inquiry<\/a> in May 2014 to investigate concerns about the charity\u2019s approach to safeguarding.<\/p>\n

The charity applied to the First-tier Tribunal (\u2018FTT\u2019) for a review of the regulator\u2019s decision on various grounds, including that the decision interfered with the congregation\u2019s human rights and amounted to discrimination on the grounds of religion. The FTT upheld the Commission\u2019s decision to open the inquiry in April 2015. The charity then appealed the FTT\u2019s decisions to the Upper Tribunal (see endnotes)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These appeals have now been dismissed by the Upper Tribunal. The judge hearing the case, Mrs Justice Asplin, concluded that the FTT \u201cwas entitled to decide that there was no direct discrimination on the grounds of religion, the inquiry having been opened on the basis of unusual and distinctive factual reasons and [\u2026] that there were no other comparable cases from which to infer discrimination on the grounds of religious beliefs\u201d.<\/p>\n

Chris Willis Pickup, Head of Litigation at the Charity Commission says:<\/h4>\n
\n

This judgment confirms that the Commission acted lawfully in opening the investigation, and rejects claims that the Commission\u2019s actions discriminated against the charity because of its religion. We regret that public and charity funds have been used on this protracted litigation, but we will continue to defend robustly our legitimate role in investigating serious concerns about charities. We hope and expect that this judgment concludes the litigation on this matter and allows us, and the charity, to focus our efforts on concluding the Commission\u2019s inquiry.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Charity Commission has continued to progress its investigation while the tribunal action was underway and aims to conclude and publish a report of the inquiry shortly.<\/p>\n

Ends<\/p>\n

PR 29\/17<\/p>\n

\n

Endnotes<\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. There were 3 related appeals, all challenging the regulator\u2019s decision to open the inquiry: one appeal challenged the FTT\u2019s substantive decision on discrimination, and the other 2 related to earlier case management decisions made by the FTT about the scope of documentary and witness evidence before the FTT.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Notes to editors<\/h4>\n
      \n
    1. \nThe Charity Commission<\/a> is the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales. To find out more about our work, see our annual report<\/a>.<\/li>\n
    2. Search for charities on our online register<\/a>.<\/li>\n
    3. Details of how the Commission reports on its regulatory work can be found on GOV.UK<\/a>.<\/li>\n
    4. The Commission is not a safeguarding authority and our inquiries do not investigate allegations of abuse or actual incidents of abuse, whether historic or recent. Our concern is with the proper regulation of charities. Anyone with concerns about specific incidents of alleged abuses, whether historic or recent, for any charity, should report their concerns to the police and the relevant safeguarding authorities.<\/li>\n
    5. The Commission\u2019s safeguarding strategy<\/a> is available on GOV.UK.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n

      Read more information on the Commission\u2019s policy and factors taken into account when deciding to issue a press release<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n
      \n

      Press office<\/h3>\n
      \n
      \n

      \n Email<\/span>
      \n       pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk<\/a>\n <\/p>\n

      \n Press enquiries – office hours<\/span>
      \n 0300 065 2123\n <\/p>\n

      \n Press enquiries – out of hours<\/span>
      \n 07785 748787\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Commission welcomes judgment in Upper Tribunal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80451"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=80451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=80451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=80451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=80451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}