A judicial review brought by the Charity Commission against a parliamentary ombudsman has today been denied permission to proceed by a judge.
The regulator had first formally lodged proceedings at the administrative court in May 2025 after the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) published findings of an investigation in May 2024, which criticised the commission for failing to properly handle safeguarding concerns related to sexual exploitation.
The PHSO was critical of the commission’s implementation of its previous recommendations regarding sexual abuse inquiries at two charities.
PHSO previously accused commission of blocking publication
Previously, PHSO had published two reports – one regarding the experiences of a woman named Lara Hall and another about a man named Damian Murray – both of which criticised the commission’s response to their complaints and recommended actions to improve.
The commission subsequently lodged the judicial review proceedings over these critical reports, questioning the PHSO’s authority to make such recommendations as an ombudsman, and the regulator’s power to implement them.
PHSO accused the commission of preventing it from laying the critical reports before parliament, which the charity regulator denies.
According to the ombudsman, it took the rare decision to ask MPs to intervene in March but was prevented from doing so when the commission issued legal proceedings.
In September, the ombudsman claimed that it had only been able to lay its reports before parliament following a motion successfully put forward by Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee chair Simon Hoare.
PHSO requested at the time that MPs intervene “to find a resolution that will put things right for both complainants”.
Later that month, the speaker of the House of Commons applied to make his office a party to the proceedings, arguing that the Charity Commission was undertaking an improper interference with the House of Commons’ right to be informed and communicate with an officer of Parliament.
He noted that attempts to inhibit or restrain the provision of information to the House had been considered as contempt by relevant caselaw.
Complainant welcomes review being denied permission
Hall welcomed the commission’s judicial review being denied permission to proceed.
Hall said in a statement: “The Charity Commission lost its case, however they might present the ruling. They should not have attempted this judicial review. The Charity Commission should not have created a situation that forced me and other victims to have to insert ourselves into a legal process.
“I felt compelled to do this with another victim of abuse and whistleblower to ensure we could not be ignored [erased from our own cases].
“I am concerned that the Charity Commission’s board and management team may have brought this case to evade accountability and stop the parliamentary process. The Charity Commission is now in front of a select committee which is considering whether there is contempt of Parliament in this case.
“Today’s landmark judgment shows that the Charity Commission does not adhere to the safeguarding standards to which it holds charities and their trustees. I certainly now don’t trust them as a regulator. I cannot see how Parliament can leave this Charity Commission with its current powers.
“I ask now that Parliament holds the Charity Commission to account. My experience and this judgment show that accountability needs to involve truly independent and external intervention. This needs to happen now.”
PHSO: Commission should focus on implementing improvements
A spokesperson from the PHSO said in response to the ruling: “Our reports were laid before Parliament after failing to reach an agreement on compliance with the Charity Commission.
“At the heart of what might seem like a matter of process are two people, Miss Hall and Mr Murray, who have suffered significant injustice. Securing resolution for the complainants remains the priority, alongside making sure the lessons identified in our investigations are implemented.
“While the Charity Commission has made some changes after our original reports, we hope the commission will now focus on working constructively to fully comply with our reports and provide the assurance that the public are entitled to expect.”
Commission: ‘There are lessons for us to learn’
A Charity Commission spokesperson said the commission had reiterated its apologies to the two complainants and had “long accepted that there were important lessons for the commission to learn from these”, adding that it also previously apologised and compensated each complainant.
They added: “We brought this case in good faith to get clarity from the courts on the respective remits of the PHSO and commission, to provide certainty to the sector we regulate.
“While we are disappointed with the decision not to permit a full hearing, the judgment provides a clearer basis on which both organisations can perform the distinct roles Parliament has given us.
“The court has reaffirmed the commission’s role in regulating charity governance rather than acting as a safeguarding authority, and indicated that we cannot be expected to reinvestigate serious criminal allegations made against charity trustees.
“We recognise we need to draw further lessons from the court’s decision, particularly in terms of how we record and communicate our assessments of risk, and we will immediately review key aspects of the two cases in question.”
