Charity Tribunal rejects Jehovah’s Witnesses charities' latest appeal attempt
Governance | Kirsty Weakley | 9 Apr 2015
A Jehovah’s Witnesses charity has been refused permission to appeal a Charity Tribunal ruling that had denied it extra time to appeal against the opening of a statutory inquiry.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and appealed the Charity Tribunal’s decision not to extend the period of time that they had to file an appeal into a statutory inquiry that had been opened by the Charity Commission.
The charities had claimed that the ruling earlier this year that denied them extra time to appeal was unlawful. They both claimed that the 3 March ruling had three legal errors relating to whether the charity had a good reason for asking for an extension.
Alison McKenna, principal judge of the Charity Tribunal said in the latest ruling that she has “decided not to undertake a review as I am not satisfied that there was an error of law in my ruling”.
The 3 March ruling had criticised the delay to the Charity Commission’s investigation, and warned that this could result in “ongoing risks” to children.
Trustees of the Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses had appealed a decision to limit the questioning of a Commission case worker at an earlier hearing. McKenna said that having examined the grounds for appeal she was not "satisfied that they raise arguable errors of law" and refused permission for appeal.
Last summer the Charity Commission opened statutory inquiries into the two organisations, after the Manchester Evening News reported that Jonathan Rose, 40, an elder of the New Moston congregation, was jailed for nine months for abusing two women when they were young girls.
The paper reported that after his release the New Moston congregation conducted a series of “disfellowship” meetings to decide whether Rose should remain a member of the organisation, in which the women were required to recount their ordeal. At one meeting, Rose was present and allowed to ask questions.
This article has been ammended to clarify that the two appeals concerned different points
*********************************************************************************