Hit the headlines in November 2021 when two judges made a number of statements that included: “Prosecutions brought "with no evidential basis' and 'for wholly improper reasons and purposes"
"the prosecutions were an abuse of the court’s process." "prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants 'regardless' of whether they had committed any offence, and to recover grossly exaggerated' fees." and "avoid judicial scrutiny of their decisions and actions"
" The concern I have is that ***," "may have been involved in systematic fraud and in perverting the course of public justice." "individuals may have pleaded guilty to offences as a consequence of being misled by *** and [their solicitors], or due to a LACK OF SCRUTINY OF THEIR ACTIONS." “the charity’s prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants regardless' of whether they had committed any offence, and to recover 'grossly exaggerated' fees.”
Issues
- This charity was registered with the primary and stated purposes of investigating and prosecuting members of the public. How could these stated objectives meet the stringent public benefit requirements of charity registration? Requirements that state clearly that any detriment or harm that results from the charity's purpose must not outweigh the benefit and must not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit.
- The Commission were informed, in October 2020 via the Commissions complaints process, of the charity’s illegal and damaging practices and the detriment and harm it was causing to law abiding members of the public. The Commission state they wrote to the charity to offer advice. Since that date approximately 150 private prosecutions have been carried out by this charity, resulting in further significant detriment and harm to the public and monetary benefit for the charity and individuals associated with the charity
- Further complaints were raised with the Commission between Jan 2021 and current day, none of which we are aware were answered by the Commission or acted upon.
- The Commission have permitted the identities of the charities trustees to be protected. This is an exemption usually reserved for specialist charities such as refuges and is connected to the risk of harm not the risk of accountability. This action prevents members of the public from seeking legal redress or justice.
- We understand that as a result of a judge writing to the Commission the Commission has written to the charity again, this time to request some information. Meanwhile the charity is continuing its fundraising activities and its stated purposes.
11
Conclusion
Charity Sanity questions why a charity's immoral and indecent activities, supported by the Commission's registration, can cost innocent people thousands of pounds in fines paid to the charity. It has meant that innocent people now have false criminal records and have suffered irreparable harm to their reputations and mental health. It has also cost the govt approx 800k in fees due to prosecutions the charity dropped when the accused refused to be bullied and capitulate to the charity’s threats.
There are safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the judicial system which have failed at every step in every case. We consider that this is in large part because agencies presume charities are robustly regulated by a strong and watchful regulator i.e., the Charity Commission they automatically believe the Commission ensures charities operate with honesty and integrity. Encouraging the belief that all prosecutions brought by the charity were fair and just, two judges at least did not think so.
The detriment and harm caused to innocent people's lives cannot be overstated. If the Commission had acted appropriately and within its regulatory framework in October 2020, innocent law-abiding people would not have been criminalised in this appalling manner. People who were intimidated by threats of unaffordable legal bills now have criminal records and will have to pay yet again if they want to challenge those convictions.
One lady stated she not only lost her business but she was driven to despair and considered suicide because of the, now overturned, legal action. How does this meet the basic requirements for public benefit?
This charity should never have got through the supposedly robust registration process.
12
A charity supporting Christians in difficult situations
A vulnerable beneficiary of the charity made a serious complaint to the Commission detailing an inappropriate and abusive sexual relationship which included rape of herself and others. The complaint also included extensive information regarding financial misconduct. The complaint included evidence to support all the accusations.
Issues
- The Commission accepted the complaint and investigated the safeguarding issue, determining that it had occurred. Commission officers informed the complainant that due to the harm caused to her, the seriousness of the allegations and the many financial issues, the Commission would act and close down the charity. The Commission stated that due to the significant harm and the risk involved they would prevent the person responsible from ever being in that role again or having any influence or control over that or any other charity.
- Commission Officers have, over the last 3 years, continued to assert and reassure the vulnerable and emotionally fragile beneficiary that the closure would happen.
- The Commission did not follow through with their stated actions, the closure did not happen
- The Commission instead issued an official warning to the charity, primarily advising that the trustees must put safeguarding and financial policies in place. It did not address that it was the trustee/senior manager who was the accused perpetrator of the abuse and wrongdoing.
- The Commission's additional response has been to quietly remove the accused perpetrator of the abuse and wrongdoing and to hand over the control and management of the charity to his wife.
- The complainant has since provided significant evidence to the Commission proving that the accused perpetrator remains in control of the charity. The Commission have demonstrated frustration at this but have not acted to prevent or stop it.
- In a recent call to the complainant the Commission have U-turned on 3 years of previous statements, Officers behaviour to the complainant has become openly hostile. The Commission Officers are very aware of the complainants, understandably vulnerable, emotional state. It is of real concern whether any risk assessment was conducted by Commission Officers before undertaking this instantaneous, deliberate and considered overnight change in attitude.
- In that call the Commission Officers stated they were now and suddenly happy with the charity because it is funding one single project in London, a project run by a close associate of the previous chair (the accused perpetrator of the abuse and financial misconduct) Officers informed the vulnerable complainant that this funding arrangement by the charity means it is now “doing impressive work” which has allowed the Commission to reconsider its response. It has determined via its risk led approach that this charity must survive. The project is not related to the charity’s primary aims or the purposes for which it raises money. It does not form a significant part of their public presence.
- In addition to the primary complainant’s allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse there were also a significant number of other cases with evidence, reported to the commission by vulnerable female beneficiaries in Thailand. These were neither acknowledged or acted upon and the individuals were not contacted by the Commission.
13
Conclusion
Charity Sanity believes that the Commission regularly hands charity management to very close family members of individuals considered responsible for charity wrongdoing and fraud. Is this ever appropriate? Why does the commission think it is ok?
In this case as in others the Commission allocated a “handler” to placate, stall and make promises to the complainant. As a result, the Commission has compounded the abuse and powerlessness of the complainant. The fragile emotional state of the complainant is made worse by every conversation they have or communication they receive from the Commission, the last one being we’ve changed our mind, get over it and stop complaining.
The complainant reports that the Commission originally dragged their feet and did not appropriately engage with the complaint. In the early stages the Commission informed the complainant that their investigation was almost complete. It was only after a personal intervention by Dame Hodge that they appropriately considered and investigated the complaint. It was only after engaging and communicating with the complainant by telephone and not email that they issued the written warning.
The Commission do not fully engage with all complaints, they fob complainants off, it is sometimes only when external scrutiny occurs or there is negative publicity that the Commission choose to appropriately engage. The Commission maintains that they operate transparently, and are fair and impartial.
