Charities which bring judicial reviews could be forced to name supporters, who could then end up being hit with substantial costs, according to proposals outlined by government last week.
Charity sector leaders and legal experts said the move would make it harder for charities to bring judicial reviews, and that the proposals were “deeply disappointing and worrying”.
The Ministry of Justice last week published its response to a consultation, Reform of judicial review: Proposals for the provision and use of financial information. It includes rules designed to ensure that organisations bringing judicial reviews can afford to do so, and to identify backers who may be using an organisation as a front to represent their interest.
Those rules are in addition to changes introduced last year, which will increase charities’ costs. Chris Grayling, the then-justice secretary, admitted those rules were a deliberate attack on charities.
The proposed new rules would require organisations bringing or intervening in judicial reviews to give names and financial information of anyone providing more than £3,000 to support the case. Charities had asked for an exemption from these rules but that exemption has not been granted.
Courts have always had the power to require this information but it must now be provided as a matter of course.
The rules also make it easier for the courts to require those backers – and any members of the organisation – to pay the costs of the organisation.
Melanie Carter, a partner at law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite, said it was not clear what information about donors and members the courts might make public, or whether those details might be handed to other parties in the review.
It is also not clear whether charities would have to reveal details of any donor giving more than £3,000 to the charity, or only those who donations were earmarked to support the case.
Asheem Singh, interim chief executive of Acevo, said the rules changes were extremely concerning.
“This is a very disappointing response to the very real concerns expressed by civil society leaders regarding the possible effect of the application of these changes,” he said. “The sector, like the rest of society, needs a last line of defence against decisions based on specious central reasoning and application. The continued insistence on adopting these proposed reforms can only serve to deter many charities from using Judicial Review.
“Equally concerning is the real hazard that donors of sums of £3,000 and above could be vulnerable to legal costs of a failed Judicial Review. This is clearly a disincentive to being a donor in the first place, the very individuals upon whom charities depend. What reasoning is there to introduce a disincentive to philanthropy?”
Matt Shardlow, chief executive of Buglife, who campaigned against the changes, said he was “extremely disappointed and worried”.
He said his charity was currently involved in two judicial reviews challenging multinational corporations, but would find it harder to bring such actions in the UK courts in future.
“It’s going to be difficult to make a case to members and donors that they should have their details passed on to companies they may find distasteful,” he said. “Members of environmental charities now face being billed over a court action they may not have even known was taking place.”
Related articles
