CAGE wins right to Charity Commission judicial review

The Guardian reported yesterday that the human rights advocacy group CAGE have been successful in their bid to take the Charity Commission to court for pressuring donor charities into terminating funding to the group.

The High Court, in a “landmark” decision, have granted permission for a judicial review of the charity regulator after CAGE claimed its “unlawful exercise of powers” has had a “chilling effect” on the charity sector.

After the group argued that security services had played a role in the radicalisation of Mohammed Emwazi, known as ‘Jihadi John,’ two charities withdrew their funding for CAGE at the behest of the Charity Commission.

CAGE argues that the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) and the Anita Roddick Foundation were coerced by the Commission and this “overzealous” treatment of the group exceeded the regulator’s powers granted under the Charity Act 2011.

JRCT said in a statement earlier this year: “In the light of regulatory pressure, and to protect the interests of all our grantees and the other work of the trust, we have decided to publicly confirm that we will not fund Cage either now or in the future.”

The Guardian reports that the regulator admitted asking both charities to disclose what funds it had given to CAGE and further requested that no more financial support be given to the group.

It said: “Given the nature of [CAGE’s] work, and the controversy it has attracted, the Charity Commission has been concerned that such funding risked damaging public trust and confidence in the charity sector.”

According to the Commission, JRCT confirmed it had awarded CAGE £305,000 between 2007 and 2014, £271,250 of which was paid, and the Anita Roddick Foundation had paid £120,000 to the group between 2009 and 2012.

CAGE’s application for judicial review was granted yesterday by Lord Justice Burnett. Both parties have until mid-September to submit any additional evidence to the court and the case will be heard in the divisional court later in 2015, the Guardian reports.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, the director of CAGE, said: “We are pleased at [this] decision. The rule of law remains an ideal worth striving for in the interests of good government and peace at home and abroad.”

“This is a welcome step in the right direction for all members of civil society.”

Zoe Nicola, of HMA Solicitors who are acting for CAGE, said: “We are grateful to the court for granting permission to pursue the judicial review against the Charity Commission, on the basis that there was an arguable case that they acted beyond their statutory powers in seeking assurances that, in essence, prevented the provision of future charitable funding to Cage.”

“This case highlights important constitutional concerns about whether the Commission can demand assurances from charities that they will not give private funds to groups deemed ‘controversial’,” Nicola added.

CAGE have also argued that the Commission’s decisions violated the group’s freedoms of expression and association and were made dishonestly without notifying CAGE beforehand.

Burnett advised CAGE’s legal team that if they wanted to raise this point at the divisional court it had to be “properly evidenced and presented” in order for the judicial review to be expanded by the mid-September.

The Charity Commission’s representative, Julian Milford, argued that the regulator had acted within its powers, citing section 15, part 2, of the Charities Act 2011, which states that the regulator can “give such advice or guidance with respect to the administration of charities as it considers appropriate,” and section 20 of the act, which says the commission “may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the performance of any of its functions or general duties.”

A spokeswoman from the Charity Commission stated that the regulator had acted responsibly with respect to CAGE and the JRCT.

“The court has directed that there should be a further hearing to consider Cage’s remaining argument that the commission acted outside its powers. We look forward to explaining to the court why the commission’s engagement with these charities was firmly within our powers.”

The issue of the Charity Commission acting ultra vires was discussed by Peter Oborne in an article for Open Democracy. Oborne, who has investigated “witch hunts” that have been led against some Muslim charities, wrote “the commission must not confuse its task of protecting public confidence in charities with protecting them from being unpopular.”

CAGE also revealed this week that it is seeking legal advice on whether Prime Minister David Cameron was guilty of defamation after he branded the advocacy group “extremist” in his counter-terrorism speech in Birmingham on Monday.

Third Sector reports the advocacy group have formally complained to the United Nations Special Rapporteur, calling for a complete investigation into the British government.