Share

Tribunal members 'balanced and independent' despite private education, claims judge

High Court
News

Tribunal members 'balanced and independent' despite private education, claims judge2

Finance | Tania Mason | 18 Apr 2011

Two of the three tribunal judges that will hear the case on public benefit of independent schools were themselves privately educated, but do not think that private schools are the “best thing since sliced bread”, lead judge Mr Justice Warren said today.

Mr Justice Warren and Alison McKenna, president of the charity tribunal, presided over a preliminary hearing this morning to sort out the processes and the scope of the issues to be covered in the full hearing of the Independent Schools Council’s judicial review of the Charity Commission’s guidance on public benefit.  The case is due to take place in May and last at least seven days.

The full hearing will be heard in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) by Warren and McKenna along with Judge Elizabeth Ovey.  At today’s hearing, Mr Justice Warren volunteered the information that of the three judges, two attended private schools while one went to state schools, and of the two judges that have children, their children had a mixture of state and private education.  One judge still has children at fee-paying schools but all fees have been paid up-to-date.

Mr Justice Warren said: “I have given very careful consideration to the composition of this panel and I am satisfied that it will be a balanced and independent tribunal.

“You should not assume that those of us who have been to private schools think they are the best thing since sliced bread.”

Rights and wrongs of public schools

He said the judges would be limiting the scope of the case to the issues raised in the judicial review and Attorney-General’s reference, and would not be seeking to make judgements about the rights and wrongs of independent schools. “We are not equipped to examine and determine issues of benefit and disbenefit,” he said.

He used an analogy of sea walls – some people would prefer they weren’t there because they would rather see the ocean, but others insist on them to prevent their homes being flooded.  “Who is right?” said Warren.  “Likewise religion: if it is right for schools, why not religion, indeed, in the context of faith schools, who is to say whether they are for the public benefit or not?

“These are deeply political and contentious questions and not for the Tribunal to decide.”

Therefore, he said, the scope of the hearing would be limited to the issues raised in the Attorney-General’s reference and the judicial review.

He warned the legal teams representing the parties that this meant “huge rafts” of the evidence they had already submitted were probably irrelevant and inadmissible and he did not think it would be necessary for any of them to present oral evidence.

For instance, he said: “We are concerned that in NCVO’s submission they seem to want us to go into individual assessments of individual schools.”

William Henderson on behalf of the Attorney-General, agreed it was important to keep the scope of the dispute within reason, “otherwise you might think you are being asked to rewrite the textbook of the law on charities”.

Francesca Quint, on behalf of the NCVO, said the only reason that NCVO referred to the assessments was to “illustrate the perception that however correct the Charity Commission has been in its own understanding of the law, that has not necessarily come across to the people to whom the guidance is addressed.  There are ambiguities in the published guidance and the assessments.”

Mr Justice Warren concluded by warning the parties not to come to the full hearing and presume it is blindingly obvious that their case is the right one, because the question under consideration was one of utmost importance.  He told them to assume for a moment that providing education to 400 fee-paying pupils was not charitable, and that they needed to be able to answer the question of why providing a number of scholarships suddenly makes it charitable.


LORRAINE WALKER
MANAGER
BLISS MEDIATION
19 Apr 2011

READING THE ABOVE, i FEEL THAT PAYING FOR YOUR EDUCATION IS YOUR CHOICE IF YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUHG TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THIS LUXURY. BUT IT IS A LUXURY, NOT A CHARITY, WHO DELIVER WORK TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, JUST TO THE SELECT FEW.

SCHOOLS GET PAID FOR THE DELIVER OF EDUCATION BY PARENTS. tHIS IS A BUSINESS NO NO NOT A CHARITY

Bob
19 Apr 2011

Ho, ho, ho !!

Any standard governance model would require them to claim a real or perceived conflict of interest and remove themselves from the debate. However, with most of the front-bench having been to Eton it is perhaps allowed !!

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Free eNews

Charity Commission opens inquiry into Families Against Neuroblastoma

22 Jul 2014

The Charity Commission has frozen the bank accounts of Families Against Neuroblastoma and appointed two...

Cabinet Office overruled own grants panel to fund Big Society Network charity

21 Jul 2014

The Cabinet Office vetoed its own appointed grantmaking advisory panel in order to make a £300,000 grant...

Big Lottery Fund opens £630,000 programme to prepare sector for European funding opportunities

21 Jul 2014

Voluntary sector organisations in England have been invited to apply for a share of £630,000 of funding...

Sadiq Khan MP: 'Sarah' Bill is embarrassing and pathetic

22 Jul 2014

Labour MP Sadiq Khan yesterday called the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill “embarrassing...

Charity Commission criticises trustees for failing to report CEO's child abuse conviction

22 Jul 2014

The Charity Commission has met with trustees of the Southwark Muslim Women’s Association after its chief...

Charity Commission opens inquiry into Families Against Neuroblastoma

22 Jul 2014

The Charity Commission has frozen the bank accounts of Families Against Neuroblastoma and appointed two...

Greenpeace video removed from YouTube following copyright claim

14 Jul 2014

A campaign video by Greenpeace against Lego’s relationship with Shell has been subject to a copyright...

Oxfam advert removed after appearing before extremist videos

10 Jul 2014

Oxfam has removed one of its adverts from YouTube after it was shown on channels showing content from...

Data protection proposals 'potentially catastrophic' for fundraising

8 Jul 2014

EU data protection proposals could have a “potentially catastrophic” impact on charity fundraising,...

Join the discussion

 Twitter button

@CSFinance