Further memorandum from the Home Office
(DCH 18)
THE PROPOSED CHARITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL WOULD
WORK
1. The table at Annex A outlines those matters
which would be subject to appeal to the Tribunal; the people (or
groups of people) who would be entitled to lodge an appeal; and
the Tribunal's jurisdiction in each case.
2. The Tribunal would work as follows:
— The Lord Chancellor would make rules
regulating the exercise of the right to appeal to the Tribunal
(under new section 2B(3)(a) of the Charities Act 1993). The intention
is that those rules would specify that anyone wanting to appeal
to the Tribunal against a Charity Commission decision would first
have to have gone through the Commission's Decision Review Procedure.
That Procedure is the Commission's internal (non-statutory) mechanism
for reviewing its own decisions. Currently, about two thirds of
people who invoke that Procedure succeed in having the Commission's
original decision reversed in their favour.
— Having completed the Decision Review
Procedure, if the appellant remained dissatisfied it would be
open to him to lodge an appeal with the Tribunal. Again it would
be for the Lord Chancellor to make rules governing the relevant
time period for doing so and the manner in which appeals were
made, but it is intended that the appellant would have a period
of three months from the date of the Decision Review to lodge
an appeal.
— There would not be any charge to
appellants for lodging an appeal.
— It would not be necessary for the
appellant to be legally represented before the Tribunal. He would
be free to choose either to represent himself or to be (legally
or otherwise) represented.
— The Charity Commission would be the
respondent at the Tribunal (at present it is the Attorney General,
not the Commission itself, who is the respondent to appeals against
the Commission in the High Court).
— The Tribunal would consider the decision,
direction or order appealed against afresh and could take into
account evidence which was not available to the Commission.
— The functions of the Tribunal would
be exercised by panels of the Tribunal. It would be for the President
to make arrangements (which would be published) determining which
members of the Tribunal constituted a panel in relation to the
exercise of any function. Depending on the length, complexity
and general significance of any particular matter the panel could
consist of:
— the President of the Tribunal sitting
alone;
— the President and two other (not
necessarily legal) members;
— a legal member with two other (not
necessarily legal) members;
— with the parties' agreement, the
President and one other (not necessarily legal) member;
— with the parties' agreement, a legal
member and one other (not necessarily legal) member.
— As a general rule decisions of the
Tribunal would be taken by majority vote
— The rules of the Lord Chancellor
would cover the award of costs at the Tribunal.
— Any party to the proceedings could
appeal to the High Court on a point of law against a decision
of the Tribunal. However, an appeal could only be lodged with
the permission of the Tribunal, or where they have refused, the
permission of the High Court.
3. While the Attorney General would not
be the respondent at the Tribunal, he would retain a role. He
would have a right of appeal against the Commission's decision
(as described in Annex A). At any stage of the proceedings the
Tribunal or, in the case of an appeal from the Tribunal, the court
may direct that all necessary papers should be sent to the Attorney.
The Attorney would have the power to intervene in the proceedings
as he thought fit or to argue before the Tribunal or the court
any question that the Tribunal or court considered it necessary
to have fully argued.
June 2004
|
