This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/23/high-court-orders-judicial-review-of-cage-charity-commission-funding-decision
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| High court orders judicial review of Cage charity funding decision | |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| The High Court has made a landmark ruling that the Charity Commission will face a judicial review of its decision to pressure charities not to fund advocacy group Cage. | The High Court has made a landmark ruling that the Charity Commission will face a judicial review of its decision to pressure charities not to fund advocacy group Cage. |
| The commission had allegedly overstepped its powers by asking two charities to stop funding Cage in March, after the group said Mohammed Emwazi, believed to be the Islamic State executioner known as Jihadi John, had been radicalised by Britain. | The commission had allegedly overstepped its powers by asking two charities to stop funding Cage in March, after the group said Mohammed Emwazi, believed to be the Islamic State executioner known as Jihadi John, had been radicalised by Britain. |
| Related: Charities sever ties with pressure group Cage over Mohammed Emwazi links | Related: Charities sever ties with pressure group Cage over Mohammed Emwazi links |
| Cage has claimed that the commission’s actions in pressurising two charities – the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) and the Roddick Foundation – were made outside its powers as a regulator under the Charity Act 2011, and this ground was deemed “arguable”. | Cage has claimed that the commission’s actions in pressurising two charities – the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) and the Roddick Foundation – were made outside its powers as a regulator under the Charity Act 2011, and this ground was deemed “arguable”. |
| The application for the review to proceed was granted on Thursday morning by Lord Justice Burnett. | The application for the review to proceed was granted on Thursday morning by Lord Justice Burnett. |
| The parties have until mid-September to submit any further evidence. The case will be heard later in the year in the divisional court. | The parties have until mid-September to submit any further evidence. The case will be heard later in the year in the divisional court. |
| Dr Adnan Siddiqui, the director of Cage, said: “We are pleased at today’s decision. The rule of law remains an ideal worth striving for in the interests of good government and peace at home and abroad. | Dr Adnan Siddiqui, the director of Cage, said: “We are pleased at today’s decision. The rule of law remains an ideal worth striving for in the interests of good government and peace at home and abroad. |
| “The Charity Commission’s actions against Cage have sent a chill through the charity sector, and this is a welcome step in the right direction for all members of civil society.” | “The Charity Commission’s actions against Cage have sent a chill through the charity sector, and this is a welcome step in the right direction for all members of civil society.” |
| Zoe Nicola, a solicitor representing 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.” | Zoe Nicola, a solicitor representing 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.” |
| The case raises major constitutional issues on whether the commission can require assurances from charities not to spend private money in support of controversial causes, Nicola said. | The case raises major constitutional issues on whether the commission can require assurances from charities not to spend private money in support of controversial causes, Nicola said. |
| She added: “We welcome the court’s decision that the judicial review raises sufficiently important matters that the full appeal should be unusually determined by a full divisional court.” | She added: “We welcome the court’s decision that the judicial review raises sufficiently important matters that the full appeal should be unusually determined by a full divisional court.” |
| As the matter is going before the full court, representatives cannot make any further comment at this stage. | As the matter is going before the full court, representatives cannot make any further comment at this stage. |
| The group had also argued that the commission’s actions violated its right as an advocacy group to express its freedom of association and that it was unfair of the commission to exercise those powers without first seeking representation from Cage. However, these grounds were dismissed. | The group had also argued that the commission’s actions violated its right as an advocacy group to express its freedom of association and that it was unfair of the commission to exercise those powers without first seeking representation from Cage. However, these grounds were dismissed. |
| Burnett said that if Cage and its legal team wished for this second point to be argued in a divisional court at a later stage, “it must be properly evidenced and presented to the divisional court, if the review is to be expanded, by the middle of September.” | Burnett said that if Cage and its legal team wished for this second point to be argued in a divisional court at a later stage, “it must be properly evidenced and presented to the divisional court, if the review is to be expanded, by the middle of September.” |
| Cage announced on Wednesday that it was also seeking legal advice on whether David Cameron could be guilty of defamation for labelling it an extremist organisation during a speech on counter-terrorism earlier this week. | Cage announced on Wednesday that it was also seeking legal advice on whether David Cameron could be guilty of defamation for labelling it an extremist organisation during a speech on counter-terrorism earlier this week. |
| JRCT had joined the Roddick Foundation earlier this year in agreeing to no longer provide financial support to Cage. | JRCT had joined the Roddick Foundation earlier this year in agreeing to no longer provide financial support to Cage. |
| “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,” said a JRCT 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,” said a JRCT statement earlier this year. |
| “As a Quaker trust, we reject all violence and believe profoundly in the rights and worth of every human being. We believe that to break cycles of violence, we need due legal process for all, including those suspected or accused of terrible crimes.” | “As a Quaker trust, we reject all violence and believe profoundly in the rights and worth of every human being. We believe that to break cycles of violence, we need due legal process for all, including those suspected or accused of terrible crimes.” |
| The commission had said it asked both charities what money they had given to Cage and requested that no more grants be awarded. | The commission had said it asked both charities what money they had given to Cage and requested that no more grants be awarded. |
| 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 charity.” | 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 charity.” |
| According to the commission, JRCT confirmed it made grant awards to Cage of £305,000 between 2007 and 2014, of which £271,250 was paid. The Roddick Foundation made grant payments of £120,000 between 2009 and 2012. The commission said Roddick responded within 24 hours and immediately agreed to cease funding Cage. | According to the commission, JRCT confirmed it made grant awards to Cage of £305,000 between 2007 and 2014, of which £271,250 was paid. The Roddick Foundation made grant payments of £120,000 between 2009 and 2012. The commission said Roddick responded within 24 hours and immediately agreed to cease funding Cage. |