Southampton and District Sports and Leisure Association for the Disabled

Registered Charity No. 275482

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 20 December, 2007.

The Charity

1. The Southampton and District Sports and Leisure Association for the Disabled (“the Charity”) was registered in 1978. Its aims are, in summary, the provision of facilities and opportunities for recreation and other leisure time activities for disabled persons living in Southampton.

2. The charity’s income for the year ending 31 December 2005 was £33,191.

Source of Concern

3. In December 2005 Southampton Social Services contacted the Commission and informed it that one of the Charity’s trustees, Mr Stephen Browne, had an unspent conviction that was relevant to the work the Charity undertook as it related to inappropriate contact with a child. Southampton Social Services was concerned that this affected Mr Browne’s suitability to be a trustee of the Charity.

4. Southampton Social Services also informed the Commission that one other trustee of the Charity, Trustee A, had been made aware of Mr Browne’s unspent conviction in 2001, and had not taken adequate steps to safeguard the Charity’s beneficiaries from any resultant risk of harm. In particular, Southampton Social Services reported that Trustee A had routinely allowed Mr Browne unsupervised access to vulnerable beneficiaries. Trustee A was the only one of the charity’s trustees to whom this information was disclosed..

Commission inquiry

5. The relevance of Mr Browne’s unspent conviction to the Charity’s work raised serious concerns about his suitability to be a trustee of the Charity. The Commission was also concerned at the apparent failure by Trustee A to address this. Given the potential risk of harm to the Charity’s beneficiaries resulting from this situation, an inquiry was opened.

Issues

6. The issues considered by the inquiry were:

a) The suitability of Mr Browne to be a trustee of the Charity; and
b) The conduct of Trustee A when made aware of Mr Browne’s unspent conviction.

Timescale of inquiry

7. The inquiry was opened on 29 December 2005 and closed on 25 July 2006. The delay in publishing this statement resulted from the need to ensure that it did not prejudice the outcome of investigations underway by other agencies, including a criminal investigation underway by Hampshire Constabulary.

Findings

8. The Commission found that Mr Browne did not disclose his unspent conviction to the other trustees of the Charity, and both as a volunteer and a trustee he put himself in situations where he was alone with vulnerable beneficiaries, namely adults with disabilities. Given his conviction, Mr Browne should have known that this was inappropriate.

9. Mr Browne had initially volunteered for the Charity and drove a minibus for them. In this position he was allowed occasional unsupervised access to beneficiaries, including being alone with them. The Commission was informed by Trustee A, and two other trustees that it interviewed (Trustees B and C), that Mr Browne had extensive unsupervised access to vulnerable beneficiaries. This included, in one instance, permitting a beneficiary to spend the night at his house. The Commission found that there were disagreements between Trustees A, B and C about the extent and frequency of Mr Browne’s access to beneficiaries but there was agreement that it did happen at least occasionally.

10. Mr Browne then put himself forward for trusteeship of the Charity despite knowing that he had an unspent conviction that was relevant to its work, and that this seriously affected his suitability to be a trustee of the Charity. Mr Browne should have known that it was inappropriate for him to hold the position of trustee in this Charity. Therefore in putting himself forward for trusteeship (and accepting and carrying out the functions of a trustee), Mr Browne knowingly created a serious risk to the Charity’s reputation.

11. The Commission established that Trustee A had been made aware of Mr Browne’s conviction prior to his putting himself forward for trusteeship of the Charity. Trustee A made another trustee, Trustee B, aware of this conviction as well but chose not to disclose it to the trustees as a whole as he considered it confidential information. The Commission took account of Trustee A’s view that the information about Mr Browne was confidential, and appreciated that he faced a difficult and challenging decision about whether to disclose the conviction to the other trustees. However, the Commission concluded that Trustee A’s decision effectively denied the trustees as a whole the opportunity to consider how this information affected whether Mr Browne was suitable to be accepted as a trustee of the Charity or have access to beneficiaries.

12. By deciding not to disclose Mr Browne’s conviction to the other trustees of the Charity, Trustees A and B took responsibility for monitoring his conduct and access to beneficiaries. Views differed about the robustness of this monitoring between Trustees A, B and C but the Commission concluded that Trustees A and B had failed to monitor Mr Browne adequately, placing both the Charity’s beneficiaries and its reputation at risk. It was clear that there was no systematic monitoring of Mr Browne’s conduct and Mr Browne continued to drive the Charity’s minibus. According to Trustee C, Mr Browne assisted beneficiaries with their personal care without supervision, when he as well as Trustees A and B should have known that this was inappropriate. When specific concerns were raised about Mr Browne’s contact with one beneficiary, there was no evidence that Trustees A or B took any steps to increase their monitoring or prevent Mr Browne from being alone with beneficiaries, in order to ensure adequate safeguards for beneficiaries’ welfare.

13. The Commission established that Trustee C had serious concerns about Mr Browne’s conduct towards beneficiaries of the Charity during 2005, but did not inform the other trustees. They therefore did not have the opportunity to assess if action was necessary to protect the Charity’s beneficiaries from risk of harm. Trustee C did, however, report her concerns to the police.

14. Although the Charity worked with vulnerable beneficiaries, the Commission found that the trustees had not implemented adequate policies and measures to protect its beneficiaries and volunteers. In particular, the trustees had not undertaken CRB checks on trustees or volunteers who had close contact with the Charity’s beneficiaries.

15. The Commission found that Trustees A and B had in practice taken or influenced the majority of the decisions in the administration of the Charity for some years. The other trustees had not taken an active role in the administration of the Charity. Aside from this meaning that the other trustees may not have been properly discharging their duties and responsibilities towards the Charity, it meant that the judgment of Trustees A and B was substituted for that of the trustees as a whole.

Conduct of inquiry

16. In January 2006 the Commission obtained confirmation from Hampshire Constabulary that Mr Browne had an unspent conviction that was relevant to the Charity’s work. Hampshire Constabulary also confirmed that in 2001 Mr Browne’s conviction had been disclosed to Trustee A.

17. On 27 January 2006, as a temporary and protective measure, the Commission suspended Mr Browne from acting as trustee, agent or officer of the Charity.

18. The Register of Charities revealed that Mr Browne was a trustee of three other charities which worked with vulnerable adults. The Commission suspended Mr Browne from acting as trustee of these other charities. No further action was taken in relation to Mr Browne’s conduct as trustee in those other charities as there was no evidence he had unsupervised access to their beneficiaries. However, his suspension from these charities remained in place as a protective measure whilst the inquiry into the Charity continued.

19. The Commission met urgently with the trustees of the Charity to establish the extent of their individual knowledge of Mr Browne’s conviction and how his conduct was monitored.

20. On 27 April 2006, due to its concerns about their ability to properly safeguard the Charity and its beneficiaries from the risks arising from Mr Browne’s involvement in the Charity, the Commission suspended Trustees A, B and C as a temporary and protective measure. The Commission interviewed these three trustees individually and gave consideration about whether to remove them from their positions. However, in April 2006 all three resigned from their positions in the Charity, leaving the remaining trustees running the Charity.

21. Also on 27 April 2006, following a statutory period of notice of its intention to do so, the Commission removed Mr Browne as a trustee, agent and officer of the Charity. By virtue of section 72 of the Act, Mr Browne was then disqualified for being a charity trustee or trustee of any charity. He was therefore disqualified from being a trustee of the three other charities from which he had been suspended.

22. During the inquiry the Commission wrote to Mr Browne to give him the opportunity to present his views on his involvement in the Charity. Mr Browne did not respond to the Commission.

Conclusions

23. The Commission concluded that Mr Browne’s unspent conviction made him unsuitable to act as a trustee of the Charity. It was inappropriate for him to put himself forward for trusteeship when he ought to have known he was unsuitable to hold that position. Furthermore, it was inappropriate for Mr Browne to take the opportunities given to him as a result of inadequate monitoring by the Charity to have regular, close and unsupervised contact with the Charity’s beneficiaries.

24. Trustees A and B did not take reasonable or adequate steps to safeguard the Charity and its beneficiaries when they became aware of Mr Browne’s conviction. In particular, the Commission concluded that they did not monitor his conduct adequately and that they should have known that it was inappropriate for him to have unsupervised access to beneficiaries.

25. Trustee C did report her concerns to the police but did not inform the other trustees, meaning that they were not given the opportunity to take action to resolve the situation.

Regulatory action taken

26. During the inquiry the Commission took the following temporary and protective measures:

c) On 27 January 2006 the Commission suspended Mr Browne as trustee, agent and officer of the Charity.
d) On 1 February 2006 the Commission suspended Mr Browne as trustee, agent and officer of three other charities.
e) On 27 April the Commission suspended Trustees A, B and C from the Charity.

27. The following permanent measure was necessary to protect the Charity and its beneficiaries:

f) On 27 April 2006 Mr Browne was removed as a trustee, agent and officer of the Charity.

Impact of Commission intervention

28. Mr Browne was removed as trustee of the Charity and was therefore disqualified for being a charity trustee or trustee of any charity. This protected this Charity and the three other charities of which he was a trustee from any risk of harm to their beneficiaries.

29. Trustees A, B and C all resigned as trustees of the Charity and are therefore no longer responsible for any decisions taken in its administration.

30. The trustees implemented new procedures for safeguarding the Charity’s beneficiaries from harm, and strengthened their existing policies. This included a new procedure for undertaking CRB checks where appropriate. The trustees have therefore taken steps to safeguard the Charity’s beneficiaries from harm.

Resources applied

31. The case was handled by a multidisciplinary team, with the case being managed by the Compliance and Support Division and legal advice provided by the Legal Division.

Lessons for other charities

32. All trustees are responsible for ensuring that those benefiting from the charity are not harmed in any way through contact with their charity. They must accordingly take all appropriate and reasonable steps within their power to ensure that this does not happen and the risks are properly managed.

33. In charities where the trustees (and others, including volunteers) have direct contact with users who are vulnerable (for example, by reason of their age or mental health), more vigorous background checks to ensure their suitability may be necessary. All charity trustees have a duty of care and a duty to act solely in the interests of their charity. The Commission considers charity trustees risk being in breach of these duties if they fail without good reason to carry out appropriate Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks when they are entitled to do so. In some circumstances such failures may be viewed as evidence of misconduct and / or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. It is also a criminal offence in some circumstances for someone to offer certain positions working with children to someone who is disqualified from doing so. For further information please see our guidance on reporting serous incidents.

34. Where there has been any misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of a charity or it is necessary or desirable to act for the purpose of protecting the property of a charity, the Commission may suspend individuals from acting as trustee, agent and officer of the charity, pending consideration of their removal. This is a temporary and protective measure exercised where the risks to the charity, its funds or its beneficiaries warrant it. The Commission can also permanently remove individuals from acting as trustees, agents or officers of the charity.