The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
The Jamia Mosque and Islamic Centre
Registered Charity No. 513337
This is a statement of results of an inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993 as amended by the Charities Act 2006 (“the Act”) and published on 27 March 2008.
The Charity
1. The Jamia Mosque and Islamic Centre was registered with the Commission on 09 December 1982.
2. It was established for the advancement of the Islamic religion in Hyde, Manchester, by the provision of a mosque, a burial ground, of education in the principles of the Islamic faith, the relief of poverty and other charitable means. The charity’s main activities are the use of the mosque for prayers and teaching the Koran and Islamic studies to children aged between 6 and 12 years.
3. Its annual income was £230,475 in the financial year ending 31 March 2006.
Source of Concern
4. The Commission received press reports which stated that a trustee of the charity (trustee A) had been charged with serious criminal offences concerning young women. The Commission established that the charges brought concerned arranging and facilitating the arrival of persons to the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The charges had no connection to the charity.
Commission inquiry
5. The Commission opened an inquiry on 11 October 2006, to explore how the trustees had assessed and addressed the risks arising from the charges made against trustee A.
Issues
6. The issue that prompted the inquiry was the risk to vulnerable beneficiaries and to the reputation of the charity arising from the continued involvement of trustee A.
7. During the course of the inquiry, the following further issues emerged:
- Adequacy of policies and procedures to protect child beneficiaries of the charity.
- Failure to submit accounts to the Commission on time.
- Allegations of non-compliance with procedures for holding elections.
Timescale of inquiry
8. The Commission opened the inquiry on 11 October 2006 and closed it on 6 August 2007. There were delays in the publication of this report due to the complex and sensitive issues raised during the inquiry.
Findings
9. Trustee A’s involvement in the charity was limited to his responsibilities in administering the charity as a trustee and to his attending the mosque as a member of the charity. He was not involved in teaching or supervising the child beneficiaries of the charity. There was no evidence that he personally posed risks to any of the beneficiaries of the charity.
10. The Commission had concerns that the ongoing risks to the reputation of the charity, while trustee A remained charged with these offences, had not been adequately considered. When considering the impact of these charges, the charity trustees had only taken into account trustee A’s long involvement with the charity, his value as a member of the committee, and the fact that he should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. They considered suspending trustee A but they were concerned about the risk of a possible challenge from him, and whether doing so would have been fair. They decided that trustee A should continue acting as a trustee until the outcome of the court trial was known.
11. The charity had no child protection policies or procedures in place to safeguard the child beneficiaries of the charity, which was a serious cause for concern, given that one of its main activities is to teach children aged between 6 and 12 years.
12. Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks had not been carried out on the staff who were working with the child beneficiaries.
13. During the course of our engagement with the trustees we established that the trustees had not complied with their statutory duties to submit accounts to the Commission for the financial years ending 31 March 2005 and 2006.
14. No elections had taken place to appoint trustees in 2006. The trustees had acted on advice from an independent Election Commissioner not to hold elections, as only one person had been nominated for each post on the trustee body.
15. Trustee A was found not guilty on all charges on 24 April 2007.
Conduct of inquiry
16. Commission officers obtained information about trustee A’s involvement in the charity and the extent of any possible contact trustee A had with vulnerable beneficiaries.
17. Commission officers advised the trustees that it was their responsibility to manage the risks to the reputation of the charity arising from the charges against trustee A, and to consider all factors relevant to the interests of the charity both for and against allowing trustee A to continue as a trustee. The trustees reviewed their decision regarding trustee A’s position in the charity. During a meeting held by the trustees on 12 February 2007, trustee A resigned as a trustee.
18. Commission officers explained to the trustees the importance of implementing child protection procedures. The Commission advised that the trustees should draw up a suitable child protection policy in respect of all the work the charity did with children, and the trustees agreed to draw up such a policy.
19. The Commission identified that the trustees were entitled to carry out a number of CRB checks, which were not being carried out. The trustees accordingly agreed to carry out CRB checks on the trustees, the staff working with the children, and any other employees and volunteers who have contact with the children.
20. The Commission obtained the outstanding accounts for the years ending 31 March 2005 and 2006.
21. The Commission obtained details of the independent advice showing the reasons why the elections did not take place. The Commission advised the trustees to make greater efforts to encourage more nominations for the elections of trustees, to improve transparency, increase further involvement by the membership, and reduce further risk of complaint on this issue.
22. The trustees cooperated with the Commission throughout the inquiry, and provided a full account of their actions following the charges against trustee A, together with details of the activities of the charity, and information on how they safeguarded its vulnerable beneficiaries.
23. The Commission liaised with the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Police to ensure that its inquiry did not impede their criminal investigations.
Conclusions
24. The Commission had concerns that the charity trustees had not considered all the relevant factors when they initially assessed the impact and risks associated with trustee A’s continued involvement with the charity.
25. The charity did not have any child protection policy or procedures in placeto protect the child beneficiaries adequately. The trustees agreed to implement one. The charity was also not carrying out appropriate CRB checks, and the trustees have agreed to carry them out.
26. Accounts for the years ending 31 March 2005 and 2006 had not been submitted to the Commission on time, but were submitted during the course of the inquiry.
27. The trustees were advised to make greater efforts to encourage more nominations for the elections of trustees.
Regulatory action taken
28. The Commission provided extensive guidance to the trustees in respect of:
- The factors to take into account in considering whether it was appropriate for trustee A to remain a trustee.
- The importance of having a child protection policy and what it should contain.
- The importance of carrying out CRB checks.
- The legal requirement to file accounts with the Commission on time.
- The election procedures set out in the charity’s governing document.
29. The Commission had no occasion to exercise any of its statutory protective or remedial powers.
Impact of Commission intervention
30. The trustees are now in the process of implementing a child protection policy.
31 The trustees are now carrying out CRB checks on the trustees, the staff working with the children, and any other employees and volunteers who have contact with the children.
32. The trustees have now supplied the outstanding accounts for the years ending 31 March 2005 and 2006.
33. The trustees have been advised of best practice to follow in respect of the charity’s election procedures.
Resources applied
34. This case adopted a multidisciplinary approach, involving legal advice and casework management.
Actions required of the trustees
35. The trustees have agreed that they will:
- confirm in writing that appropriate CRB checks have been carried out for the trustees, staff and volunteers.
- produce a copy of the child protection policy, and minutes of meetings showing the trustees’ agreement to implement the child protection policy.
36. The Commission will continue to monitor the charity to ensure that the above information is received. Since closure of the case, the Commission has already contacted the charity to monitor progress.
Lessons for other charities
Trustees charged with a serious criminal offence
37. If a charity trustee is charged with a serious criminal offence, the Commission would usually expect that the trustee who had been charged would consider their position in the charity carefully. This is not because of any assumption of guilt, but because of the impact on the charity's ability to operate effectively in the interests of its beneficiaries before the outcome of any proceedings is known. Since the closure of the case, the Commission has now issued guidance to charities regarding the trustees’ duty to report serious incidents to the Commission, which can be found under ‘Reporting Serious Incidents’, on our website.
38. Factors such a trustee should take into account include what the charity does, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the role the trustee has in the charity; but it will usually be appropriate for the trustee to resign or absent themselves from the administration of the charity until the matter is resolved. If a trustee does not take steps to withdraw from active participation of the charity when it is clearly in the charity’s interests for the trustee to do so, the other trustees should consider taking action to suspend or remove that person. Trustees should seek advice on whether they have the power to do so in their particular charity. When the outcome of the proceedings is known the charity can re-evaluate the position.
Safeguarding Children
39. Safeguarding children is vital for charities as charity trustees have a duty of care towards the children with whom they have contact. Having safeguards in place within an organisation not only protects and promotes the welfare of children, but also enhances the confidence of trustees, staff, volunteers, parents/carers and the general public. It also protects a charity’s reputation, helps it to effectively meet its objectives, and protects its finances.
40. These safeguards should include a child protection policy and procedures for dealing with issues of concern or abuse.
41. Further information on this area can be found in ‘Safeguarding Children’ on our website
Charity Reporting and Accounting
42. Trustees must comply with their statutory obligations to maintain accounts of their charities and file them with the Commission. Published annual accounts are the primary means through which trustees report on their stewardship of their charities and show public accountability.
43. Further information on this area can be found in ‘Publications and Guidance’, ‘CC15-Charity Reporting and Accounting: The essentials'.
|
Para |
Issue |
Charity Commission Guidance and relevant legal obligation |
|
11 |
Child protection |
See Commission’s website: www.charitycommission.gov.uk |
|
7 |
Submission of Accounts to the Commission. |
CC15-‘Charity Reporting and Accounting: The essentials’ |
|
38 |
Obligation to report serious incidents to the Commission |
Charity Commission guidance notes: |
Date of Publication: 27/03/2008