Tag Archives: parliamentary privilege

Two damning reports from Parliamentary Ombudsman say Charity Commission failed complainants about sexual abuse

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office today published two reports into the Charity Commission’s handling of separate sexual abuse cases following Parliament’s rare privilege decision last week – see my report here – to compel Paula Sussex, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to release them in the face of the Commission starting legal action to stop or delay publication.

Both reports highlight the failure of the Charity Commission to implement some of its findings and the total dissatisfaction of the two complainants – Lara Hall, 37 and Damian Murray, who is 66. Both decided to waive their anonymity. I will be publishing a separate follow up story on Mr Murray’s case after he contacted me – particularly after the local media failed to cover it. It is a truly shocking story.

The two cases are different. Lara Hall’s case involves the sexual exploitation by a trustee of a UK charity where she acted as a whistleblower.

Damian Murray’s case involved historic sexual child abuse by a prominent figure in the local community which was concealed by the charity and the college where he worked.

Lara said:

“The Charity Commission’s repeated failures have caused me profound pain and ongoing injustice. Instead of holding a trustee to account for appalling sexual exploitation, it questioned my experience and forced me to relive my worst trauma. How can survivors feel safe reporting abuse if they think they will be treated like I have? 

“By trying to block Parliament from seeing the reports, the Commission attempted to avoid scrutiny – striking at the heart of accountability in our democracy. Even now, it refuses to accept responsibility or act to put things right.

“It is my hope that by bringing the reports to Parliament’s attention action will finally be taken. The Commission must urgently address safeguarding to protect vulnerable people. Right now, it is failing in its core duty.

“It is time for change, oversight, and accountability within the Charity Sector so what happened to me is never repeated. I call on Parliament to hold the Commission to account and restore public trust. People deserve to feel safe approaching charities, and they deserve a regulator that takes safeguarding seriously

Damian Murray said:“For over seven years the Charity Commission has refused to act upon my complaint about the concealment of child sexual abuse.

“The Charity Commission has doggedly resisted all efforts by me, and latterly the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to encourage it properly or promptly to discharge its statutory responsibilities, choosing rather to shield the charity and its Trustees from scrutiny and accountability.

“After much unnecessary time incurred due to this resistance, the Ombudsman’s report has now been laid in Parliament. I trust now that politicians will hold the Commission to account, where I as an ordinary UK citizen failed.

“By stark contrast with the Commission, I very much appreciate the careful, professional and empathetic way that the Ombudsman’s team have dealt with me and with the complex and consequential concerns I have raised.”

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman CEO, Rebecca Hilsenrath KC (Hon) said: 

“The Charity Commission indicated throughout our investigations that they did not agree with our findings.  They have not complied with the bulk of our recommendations, despite our best efforts and our willingness to work with them to ensure compliance.

“It is important that the Commission provides a full apology for their failings and reassures Lara and Damian that they will put things right by complying completely with our recommendations. They have not done this so far. 

“Our report has now been laid in the House of Commons, following the intervention of Parliament last week. The Commission had prevented us from doing so by bringing legal proceedings. We act on behalf of Parliament to hold Government and other national bodies to account for failures, and we have a responsibility to make Parliament aware of cases of non-compliance. I am pleased that Parliament has taken an interest in these cases and has given us the opportunity to bring them to the attention of the House so that it can intervene.

“The purpose of our investigations is always to encourage learning and service improvements. If an organisation looks at what went wrong, it will be able to stop the same mistake from happening again.”

The Charity Commission released a statement criticising the action of Parliament to order publication of the reports.

A spokesperson said: “We have long accepted that there are genuine and important lessons for the Commission to learn from these two sensitive cases, principally in the way in which we communicate with complainants, and we have made improvements to our processes as a result. We have previously apologised to both complainants.

The Commission undertook detailed reviews in each case, as set out by the Ombudsman, and concluded that the overall outcome in each case was sound. In the case of Ms Hall, we had already issued an official warning to the charity concerned. 

But it is our view that by making the decision that we did not comply with certain recommendations in its reports, the Ombudsman has misunderstood our remit and overstepped its role, meaning that its decision making was unlawful.

We respect the work and authority of the Ombudsman, but it is vital that we, in turn, are enabled to do the job that Parliament set us. 

We have worked hard to seek to resolve the matter with the Ombudsman directly, but this has not proven possible. For that reason, we have brought legal action at the High Court. 

We have not asked the court to block the laying of any report before Parliament. We did, though, ask the Parliamentary committee to delay considering the reports to allow the courts to give judgment on our own and the Ombudsman’s statutory remits first.”

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

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.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

You can also donate via PayPal The link is:

https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/865JAS3QJ3CGQ

Former Minister X v. Ryan Giggs and Sir Philip Green : Parliamentary hypocrisy or protecting a complainant?

Posted on by
Parliamentary Privilege: All right for some

Today I am reproducing a blog by Alistair Parker, a solicitor, with the firm, Brett Wilson LLP, a specialist media and professional litigation solicitors, on the issue surrounding the former Tory minister under police investigation for the alleged rape and sexual assault of one of his female staff.

My position has been that he should not be named – solely to protect the claimant who requested anonymity not to spare him embarrassment. But what this article highlights is the hypocrisy over the use of Parliamentary privilege by MPs – they use Parliamentary Privilege to name other prominent people, whether it is a famous footballer or a well known businessman, knowing they cannot be sued. But when it is one of their own the shutters come down and Parliament protects them as they are supposed to be honourable members.

The irony is that probably every MP and every lobby journalist knows his name but keeps quiet – perhaps only telling curious close friends. Thanks to Brett Wilson LLP for giving me permission to reproduce the blog. The link to their media blog is here.

Suspect anonymity: The hypocrisy of parliamentary privilege – Alistair Parker

1 August 2020 marked the parliamentary revelation that a sitting MP had been arrested by police on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and controlling and coercive behaviour. All offences were alleged to have taken between July 2019 and January 2020 against the MP’s former staffer. Police confirmed the suspect was a male Tory in his 50s, and a former minister. Subject to police guidance, the name of the man was not revealed. This is because he has not been charged and is still under investigation, with a police bail date now extended until early November 2020. 

A man suspected of a serious sexual offence therefore remains a serving MP. He has not had the Tory whip removed or been sanctioned at all, (apparently) for fear that this would identify him. Indeed, his anonymity has been carefully guarded by all sides of the House. Is this a proper observance of the right to pre-charge anonymity, or can we detect a whiff of hypocrisy?

Parliamentary privilege, which by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 guarantees that “the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament”, has long allowed members of Parliament, be they in the Commons or the Lords, to name criminal suspects in these situations.

Both peer and MPs have on occasion exploited this privilege, even identifying individuals who were protected by court injunctions:-

In 2011, then Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming named Ryan Giggs as the footballer who secured an anonymised injunction to prevent publication of allegations he had an affair with a former reality TV star.

Also in 2011, Mr Hemming revealed that the banker Sir (as he then was) Fred Goodwin had obtained a super-injunction protecting his identity in relation to an alleged extra-marital affair. The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Stoneham poured oil on the fire adding “How can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?” he asked. “If true it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would know about it.”

In October 2014, Labour MP Jimmy Hood used parliamentary privilege to make serious accusations against Sir Leon Brittan (both have since passed away). Mr Hood said “By the way, the current expose of Sir Leon Brittan, the then home secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children will not come as a surprise to striking minors of 1984”. Sir Leon was posthumously cleared of any wrongdoing once it was finally established these allegations were among the prolific lies of Carl Beech. 

In November 2018, Labour peer Lord Hain used Parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the ‘anonymous businessman’ who had used Non-Disclosure Agreements in settling numerous claims of bullying and sexual harassment with five complainants. This was despite the fact the High Court had maintained the injunction preventing publication of Sir Philip’s name and also that two of the five complainants supported this. We wrote about this matter at the time. 

The past decade therefore shows that UK politicians, in both houses, have been prepared to use Parliamentary privilege even when it:-

– Breaches civil court orders with impunity,
– Reveals personal details such as extra-marital affairs of high profile individuals, and
– Names a suspect in a serious criminal investigation, where the allegation turned out to be provably false.

Fast forward to the present day: The complainant of ‘Former Minister X’ has apparently been lobbying for his identification by urging MPs and peers to use parliamentary privilege to put his name into the public domain. If this is true, she is doing so despite the strong chance it will result in her own identification.

However, this led to an unprecedented response last week, when the Speaker of the House stepped in to urge MPs not to do so. Sir Lindsay Hoyle warned MPs that “while the investigation is ongoing, I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate for any further reference to be made to this matter in the House, including an attempt to name the member concerned.”

Sir Charles Walker MP: Former chair of the procedure committee which ruled MPs who are arrested should not be named Pic credit: Twitter

Indeed, back in February 2016, the cross-party Procedure Committee voted to end the tradition of the automatic naming of any MP who had been arrested. Its Chairman at the time, Tory MP Charles Walker said that MPs “should have the same rights to privacy as any other citizen, and in future their names should not be put in the public domain if they were arrested, unless this was directly connected to their role as an MP”. It seems Mr Walker had not considered the irony that the right to privacy of “any other citizen” can be trampled on via the use of parliamentary privilege. 

The conclusions we can draw are that, in the last decade, various parliamentarians have been happy to use parliamentary privilege to name and shame those being investigated for crimes and those embroiled in personal civil proceedings – even where they have court orders protecting their anonymity. However, when the ‘shoe is on the other foot’ and the accused party is himself a parliamentarian, it seems the House of Commons is a zealous believer in the right of pre-charge anonymity.

In simple terms, if you are being investigated of a crime, then any parliamentarian can publicly name you without any consequence to themselves. But if you name a parliamentarian who is in a similar predicament, get ready for formal legal consequences.

Although the identity of “Former Minister X” remains a mystery, surely the pattern of politicians protecting themselves could not be any clearer.