Conclusion 8

We were assured that the Charity Commission’s Board followed due process. However, it appears to us that the Board was overly reliant on the legal advice it received and did not take other considerations into account as effectively as it should have done: for example, it should have taken into account the possible reputational impact of taking legal action against another publicly funded organisation and the likely consequence of challenging the authority of Parliamentary Privilege. In its evidence, the Charity Commission has repeatedly emphasised that the advice its Board received indicated legal action should be taken. Yet it was a Board decision to seek permission for judicial review, not a decision taken by the Charity Commission’s lawyers, and the Board must, ultimately, take responsibility. (Conclusion, Paragraph 55) Organisational jurisdiction (1): Was there overreach by the PHSO?