Jehovah’s Witnesses, and judicial review being a last resort

17 December 2014 by

Moston-Kingdom-Hall-20140725101407111R (o.t.a WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF BRITAIN) v CHARITY COMMISSION, 12 December 2014, Dove J, no transcript yet available, summary on Lawtel (£)

Judicial review is an excellent and flexible remedy, filling the gaps when statutory and other appeals do not provide a remedy for unlawful administrative acts or omissions.

But there is a flip side, well exemplified by this extempore decision refusing permission for a judicial review – save in exceptional  circumstances, you can only seek judicial review when there is no other available remedy. 

In this case, Dove J decided that the Court had no jurisdiction to seek judicial review of  the Charity Commission’s decision to launch an inquiry and make a production order concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses charity because the Charities Act 2011 provided for appropriate statutory remedies that the charity should pursue first.

The summary gives only the shortest account of the underlying facts, but it appears as if there are two particular congregations of concern being investigated by the Charity Commission.

The background

It is said (here) that in 2013 at the congregation of Moston in Manchester (see pic), church elder and convicted paedophile Jonathan Rose was allowed in a series of a public meetings to cross-examine the children he had molested. Rose was finally ‘disfellowshipped’ after complaints to the police and the Charity Commission. See the Commission’s statement here announcing the inquiry.

The second case is noted here, and press reports imply that this may have been subsumed into the above inquiry. In June 2014 of Mark Sewell, an elder of the congregation in Barry,Wales was convicted of rape and sexual assault, and sentenced to 14 years in prison. Prior to this, it appears that the church conducted an internal investigation of the allegations, where the women and children had to face their alleged abuser in “judicial committee” hearings organised by their church.  Sewell’s fellow elders provided limited or no assistance to police and prosecutors in their investigation, despite “dis-fellowshipping” Sewell 20 years previously, and, it is said, destroyed evidence showing claims against Sewell dating back more than 20 years: see here.

These proceedings

The charity applied for permission to apply for judicial review of the Commission’s decision to launch an inquiry under section 46, and make a production order under section 52 of the Charities Act 2011

The charity said both decisions were disproportionate and too wide.

But, said the Commission, there were other suitable statutory remedies under the 2011 Act to which the charity should have recourse instead.

The charity argued that complying with the production order would be likely to breach data protection legislation and the human rights of the people to whom the documents pertained. It also said that the remedy sought on judicial review, namely a partial quashing order or a declaration narrowing its scope, was not possible under the statutory scheme which could only direct that the inquiry be brought to an end. Accordingly, there were exceptional circumstances making judicial review appropriate.

The judgment

The judge disagreed, and refused permission.

Judicial review was a remedy of last resort. Where there was an appropriate statutory remedy the High Court should decline jurisdiction. Determining what was the most expedient remedy was not enough; there was a presumption that the statutory regime would be followed unless there were exceptional reasons for judicial review: see e.g. R. (on the application of C) v Financial Services Authority, – which contains a good summary of the authorities.

As to the scope of the charity’s remedies under the Act, it could appeal against the making of a production order under s.320 of the 2011 Act, and  under Schedule 6, the First-Tier Tribunal could quash the production order or substitute another order. The FTT thus had jurisdiction to deal with the charity’s complaints, and could assess the human rights and data protection claims.  An inquiry could be reviewed by the FTT under s.321, under which it had to apply the principles that would be applied by the High Court in a judicial review. It also had the power to direct the commission to end the inquiry. However, if it concluded that the Commission had made an error of law and the inquiry was too wide, it would have to explain its reasons for doing so. That would allow the Commission to bring an inquiry with a narrower scope. As a public body, the Commission would have to respect the tribunal’s decision, but if it did not, the Court would then have jurisdiction by way of judicial review.

Conclusion

A salutary reminder of j.r.’s limits – and it can be seen that the exercise of comparing remedies under the statute with those by way of judicial review may not be all that straightforward.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. Darlene Alexander says:

    I’m not sure I’m understanding what is being said exactly through all the legalize, are they saying they are NOT going to be investigating Jehovah’s Witnesses for their mishandling of child abuse cases? I hope not, because by this time, with the multitude of letters/emails the Charity Commission has received – they must know that the mishandling of child abuse by JWs is not a localized event but a world wide problem. It would be a tragedy for the thousands of victims if these continuous events were allowed to be hidden.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: