Charity Commission for England And Wales v Wright & Anor

A committal application under Charities Act 2011 may proceed in the respondent’s absence where the respondent has been properly served, has had sufficient notice and opportunity to present their case, and an adjournment would not secure attendance or improve fairness. The court must weigh the respondent’s disadvantage, prejudice to the applicant and the forensic process, and the overriding objective. Disobedience to a Charity Commission direction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A direction to provide copies of documents requires proof that the documents existed, unless the direction expressly requires an explanation or a statement that no document exists.

The Charity Commission investigated the Darren Wright Foundation under Charities Act 2011. It issued directions under section 47(2) to Raymond Wright and Susan Wright requiring information, documents and attendance. The respondents, former trustees, gave only limited responses and did not attend the committal hearing. The Commission applied under sections 336 and 338 of the Act and CPR rule 81.15, alleging disobedience to the directions. The central issues were whether the directions were valid, whether specified breaches were proved, whether the application should proceed in the respondents’ absence, and what procedure should follow on penalty.

1. Validity of directions. Section 47(2) applies to “any person” and is not limited to persons who remain trustees when the direction is given. The respondents were properly regarded as persons who had or could reasonably obtain the requested information and documents. The directions were therefore valid.
2. Proof of disobedience. The burden rested on the Charity Commission, and each alleged breach had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where a direction required copies of documents, the court construed it as requiring production only if such documents existed. The Commission therefore had to prove the documents’ existence. Several document-related allegations were not proved, but other failures, including failures concerning minutes, accounts explanations, bank accounts, beneficiaries, payments, contact details and attendance dates, were proved.
3. Absence of respondents. Applying the approach in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), the court considered service, notice, reasons for absence, waiver, adjournment, disadvantage, prejudice and the overriding objective. The respondents had notice and an opportunity to present their position. Their factual disadvantage was limited, an adjournment was unlikely to secure attendance, and delay would prejudice the public administration of the charity inquiry. The hearing could fairly proceed in their absence.
4. The court found counts one and two established to the extent specified. It considered that a penalty should be imposed, but adjourned penalty and costs to a further hearing. A custodial sentence remained available, and a bench warrant could be issued if the respondents failed to attend the sentencing hearing.