Judge reserves judgement in legal dispute between the Charity Commission and Parliamentary Ombudsman

Posted on February 26, 2026 by davidhencke

n extraordinary one day court hearing yesterday is still to decide whether the Charity Commission can bring a judicial review against the Parliamentary Ombudsman for exceeding her powers in two cases involving safeguarding of children and adults involving two separate charities.

Both cases were dramatically accelerated last year when the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, gave permission for Parliament to report the Charity Commission to the Committee of Privileges for trying to stop two reports by the Parliamentary Ombudsman being published until the courts decided what the legal position of the two bodies were in the handling of the cases. The Committee of Privileges is still considering the report on the matter more than six months after the referral.

Yesterday’s hearing allowed both sides to present arguments in what could be a landmark judgement on how far the Parliamentary Ombudsman can rule on action taken by charities to safeguard people and whether the Charity Commission is a regulatory body with no powers to compel charities to investigate cases which fall short of a police action.

The two cases were both dramatic and involved both historic child sexual abuse and a much more recent serious sexual assault. The first case became public when the complainant,Damian Murray contacted this blog and revealed a long standing cover up of historic child sexual abuse by a paedophile principal at a now closed religious school in Blackburn. You can read the story here.

The second case involved a complaint against another charity of a serious sexual assault on a vulnerable woman volunteer by the chair of the charity who entered into an inappropriate relationship with her.

Both complaints were upheld by the PHSO and compensation was paid. The dispute arises over whether the Charity Commission should have gone much further to remedy this and investigated both situations. This included whether the second charity should have been wound up and whether the religious foundation which ran the school should have been further investigated despite in both cases there were no police investigations.

The Charity Commission is saying the Parliamentary Ombudsman is exceeding her powers by demanding this. The Commission told the court that the body is a regulatory body and does not have the resources to do this and furthermore would put charities across the country in double jeopardy as they would be obliged to investigate cases where the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that criminal proceedings had little chance of success.

In the argument before Judge Fordman the Commission said; “the PHSO’s decision in effect requires the Commission to carry out a quasi-criminal investigation in circumstances where the Commission does not consider it appropriate to do so, and where other relevant criminal and safeguarding agencies have investigated but not pursued a prosecution. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Commission’s role, as well as its own legitimate policy as to how its resources should be deployed.”

The PHSO in its submission to the judge asked him to throw out the case. It argued that the judicial review was academic because the two reports had already been published and the Commission’s case was inarguable as it was irrational to say the case had been remedied and the ombudsman had wide discretion involving her findings. Finally it argued that the hearing interfered with the proceedings of Parliament.

A spokesperson from the Charity Commission said:
“We acknowledge that the two complaints which led to our legal disagreement with the Ombudsman arose from some very difficult personal experiences, as was heard in court. We have long accepted that there are important lessons for the Commission to learn from the two cases in question and we have previously apologised to both complainants.

“However, at the heart of this case are vital principles about citizens’ right to due process when accused of a criminal offence, and separately avoiding charities being subject to undue overlapping regulation.

“First, the Ombudsman has told the Commission that we should assess the credibility of serious criminal allegations made against charity trustees where those allegations have already been investigated and not taken further by the police and other appropriate authorities. This runs contrary to long standing legal principles designed to ensure fairness to all.

“Second, the Ombudsman has gone beyond its legal remit by effectively second guessing our regulatory decisions. If left unchallenged, charities would in effect be subject to two overlapping regulators, creating confusion and uncertainty for them and the public.

“We have worked hard, over a lengthy period of time, to resolve these matters with the Ombudsman directly, but this has regrettably not proven possible. While we have pursued this legal action reluctantly, we are glad of the opportunity to present our case and seek the clarity of the courts in resolving this issue for the benefit of both organisations, the charitable sector, and the public we serve.”

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

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

Posted on September 9, 2025 by davidhencke

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.”