Charity Commission loses permission to take Parliamentary Ombudsman to judicial review over safeguarding cases

Posted on March 8, 2026 by davidhencke

A judge has blocked the Charity Commission from challenging the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner through a judicial review.The decision is a victory for Parliament which said permission to grant the review would be academic, non justiciable and a breach of Parliamentary privilege.

However the small print of the ruling by Mr Justice Fordham clarifies the law over what is covered by Parliamentary privilege and what is not and how far charities can be expected to investigate cases when the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

Harrowing cases

The two cases where there was a dispute between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Commission were extremely harrowing. Both complainants waived their anonymity. One brought by Damian Murray, concerned the failure to investigate historic child sexual at a now closed school run by Roman Catholic Marist Brothers in Blackburn, Lancashire. A former pupil at the school he learned from another pupil’s memoirs that the principal, Father O’Neill was a paedophile. Not only was this covered up but he was venerated with a Requiem Mass at his death and had a school building named after him, when it was known he was a paedophile by the authorities.

The second case involves Ms Lara Hall, a volunteer and a victim of sex trafficking, who sought help from the Help for Persecuted Christians charity and ended up having an extra marital affair with the chairman of the trust, WiIson Chowdhury. She complained according to the judgement that it was ” an abusive and exploitative relationship”. He resigned but his wife has now been appointed the chair.

The issue was not that the Charity Commission did not accept the complaints but neither the complainants nor the Ombudsman felt it had not done enough to investigate them and assess risk and communicate what it had done. So the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to issue a further report. This can be done “if injustice has been caused to the person aggrieved in consequence of maladministration and that the injustice has not been, or will not be, remedied, she] may, if [she] thinks fit, lay before each House of Parliament a special report upon the case.”

The judge is scathing about the Charity Commission’s failings in dealing with this. He says it was ” plainly wrong” for the Commission to claim that a risk assessment review should apply only to future cases and equally wrong to say the Parliamentary Ombudsman to have overreached herself by evaluating and examining the risk reviews rather than factually reporting them.

The judgement noted the Commission claimed a ” symptomatic of a more widespread systemic unlawfulness in the Ombudsman’s approach to cases about the Charity Commission actions.” He ruled “But, in my
judgment, it is plainly not open to the Commission to contest the findings of maladministration in these cases.”

The judgement backs the Charity Commission in saying the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision letter cannot expect the Commission to act as a criminal investigator , prosecutor or decision maker over these issues – when its main job is to investigate the mismanagement of charities. This made the Ombudsman’s letter flawed.

There was also a very interesting subtle clarification of Parliamentary privilege. While accepting Parliament’s argument that it was a breach of Parliamentary privilege to go for a judicial review – it said the special report by Parliamentary Ombudsman that followed her main report could be challenged in the courts and was not subject to Parliamentary privilege . The Charity Commission does not intend to do this.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman spokesman said:

“One of our roles is to hold public bodies to account, acting on behalf of Parliament. This is an important principle to uphold, and the Court’s decision supports that principle by refusing the Charity Commission’s request for permission to judicially review.

“Our reports were laid before Parliament after failing to reach agreement on compliance with the Charity Commission.

“At the heart of what might seem like a matter of process are two people, Miss Hall and Mr Murray, who have suffered significant injustice. Securing resolution for the complainants remains the priority, alongside making sure the lessons identified in our investigations are implemented.

“While the Charity Commission has made some changes after our original reports, we hope the Commission will now focus on working constructively to fully comply with our reports and provide the assurance that the public are entitled to expect.”

A Charity Commission spokesman said:

“We reiterate our apologies to the two complainants in these sensitive cases. We have long accepted that there were important lessons for the Commission to learn from these, and we have previously apologised and paid compensation to each complainant.

“We brought this case in good faith to get clarity from the courts on the respective remits of the PHSO and Commission, to provide certainty to the sector we regulate. While we are disappointed with the decision not to permit a full hearing, the judgment provides a clearer basis on which both organisations can perform the distinct roles Parliament has given us.

“The court has reaffirmed the Commission’s role in regulating charity governance rather than acting as a safeguarding authority, and indicated that we cannot be expected to reinvestigate serious criminal allegations made against charity trustees.

“We recognise we need to draw further lessons from the court’s decision, particularly in terms of how we record and communicate our assessments of risk, and we will immediately review key aspects of the two cases in question.”

Complainant Damian Murray said: “My actual primary concerns about the deliberate concealment of sexual abuse at the former St Mary’s College Blackburn by the Marist Fathers charity have yet to be acknowledged let alone addressed by the CC since I first raised them in 2018. And whilst PHSO, Mr Justice Fordham and PACAC have also made no adjudication about my original concerns, and have not been asked to do so, I am very grateful for the care and seriousness with which they have within their remits taken account of the grave issues of governance and regulatory failure I have raised, and the sensitivity and professionalism with which they have dealt with me personally to date.”

The full judgement is here.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vhcXwEWJm6uivRi-CvhoXYP8YJKyp3f7/view?usp=sharing

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00

£10.00

£20.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly

Top London coroner faces accusation of tampering with an inquest audio and a judicial review on the handling of her hearing into the death of an ITV journalist

Posted on July 16, 2025 by davidhencke

Senior coroner Mary Hassell Pic credit: Archant

Judge blocked her attempt to keep her name secret during the hearing

A highly controversial senior coroner is facing serious allegations that she or her staff removed parts of a transcript and recording of her hearing into the death of a talented and hardworking ITV news editor Teresa McMahon who was found hanged at her home four years ago.

Mary Hassell found that she committed suicide and ruled out that she was subject to ” coercive control” by her ex boyfriend, Robert Chalmers, an NHS estates employee, who had previous convictions for violence. Mary Hassell believed the words of the pathologist ,Dr Mohammed Bashir, who examined the body but kept no photographic evidence and discounted domestic violence and Greater Manchester Police who decided from the start that no crime had been committed and never took any photographs either at the scene of her death.

Throughout the hearing this version was challenged by Teresa’s aunt, Lorna McMahon, who was frequently interrupted by Mary Hassell when she raised questions about the competence of Greater Manchester Police in handling the investigation into her niece’s death.

I was present at the hearing at the hearing with many other journalists. My report on it is here.

Yesterday’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice was meant to decide whether the court could give her permission to bring a judicial review into Mary Hassell’s hearing claiming her conduct was irrational and procedurally unfair in coming to her verdict.

But the hearing took a completely different turn under Mr Justice Stephen Morris when Lorna McMahon, having obtained both the transcript and audio recording of the hearing said parts of both, covering descriptions of previous violence against her niece by her ex boyfriend had been omitted.

It also emerged from correspondence I have seen from Mary Hassell’s lawyers and a public ruling by a previous judge Mr Justice Kerr, that the coroner had tried to get her name kept out of the public domain during the hearing.

Her lawyers claimed ” it was customary” to be not named. She wanted it done under ” the slip rule” which meant there would be no hearing about the application. The judge ruled this procedure could not used in this way and rejected her application because it raised issues of ” open justice”.

When Mr Justice Morris heard Lorna McMahon’s evidence he weighed up whether to continue the hearing or adjourn it to allow her complaint to be properly looked at and for her to provide evidence from other people at the original hearing – including members of the public and journalists – to back up her claim.

All sides in the case agreed it was an extremely serious allegation which could be viewed as a criminal case of perverting the cause of justice.

Her own lawyer, Jonathan Glasson KC, agreed as such and but added by adjourning the case until the late autumn it meant that the accusations against the coroner were left hanging over her for some weeks.

The judge also made it clear by adjourning the hearing it did not mean that he was convinced about Lorna’s case and said she would need more evidence.

The directions he gave are worth reporting in full:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned

2. By 4pm on 12 August 2025, the Claimant is to file and serve a witness statement, verified by statement of truth, identifying any and all parts of what was said at the hearing of the inquest by the Defendant on 5 December 2024 (“the Hearing”) which she contends have been omitted from the audio recording of the Hearing provided to the Court and the Claimant by email dated 14 July 2025 at 513pm and sent by Payne Hicks Beach LLP (“the Audio Recording”).

3. At the same time as filing and serving her witness statement pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the Claimant is to file and serve any and all witness statement evidence from others (including witnesses called at the Hearing and/or members of the press and/or members of the public) in support of her contention that parts of what was said at the Hearing have been omitted from the Audio Recording.

4 By 4pm on 9 September 2025, the Defendant is to file and serve a witness statement, verified by statement of truth, in response to the evidence filed and served pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above, to include an explanation as to how the Audio Recording was produced.

5.By 4pm on 23 September 2025, the Claimant, if she so wishes, is to file and serve a written statement stating whether, and if so, why, she seeks a further oral hearing for directions in respect of the matters covered by paragraphs 2 to 4 above.

6.As soon as possible thereafter, the matter is to be placed before a judge (if possible, Mr Justice Morris) on the papers to consider directions for the progress of the case, and in particular whether there should be a further oral hearing dealing with the matters covered by paragraphs 2 to 4 above, taking account of all necessary reasonable adjustments.

7 The case to be reserved to Mr Justice Morris, if possible.

8. Costs of the adjournment and of the matters raised above reserved

This is the second recent case where there has been controversy about Mary Hassell’s handling of inquests.

Earlier that year she held an inquest into the tragic death of Gaia Young,25, who was rushed to accident and emergency at University College Hospital with severe headaches only to die of an unexplained brain condition and doctors have yet to correctly diagnose what was wrong with her.

Again Mary Hassell patronised and showed no empathy for her bereaved mother, Lady Dorit Young, who had lost her only child ,Gaia, and failed to properly investigate her death. The full story is on the Truth for Gaia website. She even blocked her from making a statement at the inquest. I reported that hearing and you can read about it here.

The treatment of both relatives led to a protest outside the coroner’s court during Teresa’s inquest. Pictures are below.