Is it worth appealing against a Charity Commission trustee disqualification order?

In February 2025 we saw the first successful overturning of a Charity Commission trustee disqualification order. The Commission had disqualified Mr Mond, a former trustee, for two and a half years, based on some social media activity while Mr Mond was a trustee. Mr Mond appealed the order to the First Tier Tribunal. 

The Tribunal found that certain social media activity by Mr Mond while he was a trustee was Islamophobic and capable of damaging public trust and confidence in charities if readers became aware that the author was a charity trustee. However, for a disqualification order to be made, it is also necessary to show that a person is unfit to be a charity trustee and that it is desirable in the public interest that they be disqualified to protect public trust and confidence. In this case, there was limited, and relatively low profile, social media activity over a seven-year period of a type that was ‘spur of the moment’ (including various ‘likes’), which didn’t present any obvious connection with charities. Furthermore, Mr Mond had acted responsibly in apologising, in withdrawing posts and in stepping down from his trusteeships. In the circumstances, a disqualification order was not appropriate.

Bates Wells partner Philip Kirkpatrick comments “The case is a careful balancing act between individual rights of freedom expression (as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)) and the need to protect public trust and confidence in charities. Several interesting points arise from the case:

• The Tribunal considered there was a low bar for bringing trustee conduct within the ambit of the legislation but a high one for justifying disqualification. Posts on public social media platforms are potentially within the ambit, but whether the conduct warrants disqualification is another matter.
• The decision was heavily based on Mr Mond’s ECHR rights, including the general principle of proportionality (under the ECHR, any interference with the right to freedom of expression must be “necessary in a democratic society”, which requires an interference to be proportionate).
• The Tribunal was concerned not to set the bar for trustee conduct too high for fear of deterring volunteers with diverse experience, interests, personalities and attitudes, which would itself be damaging to public trust and confidence in charities. The potentially damaging impact on the charity sector of setting the bar too high for trustee conduct is a vital concern, to which I consider the Commission too often gives too little weight in its regulatory work.
• The Tribunal considered that most members of the public could distinguish between someone’s ability to be a trustworthy charity trustee and their personal political views.
• While the decision is regarded by some as a triumph for free speech, one must recognise that some of the free speech that has triumphed was found by the Tribunal to be Islamophobic. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal was evidently not approving Mr Mond’s social media posts.
• This decision does not give carte blanche to offensive social media activity by charity trustees and is, like all such decisions, limited to its facts. The Tribunal might have taken a different decision in relation to regular and offensive social media activity of a considered kind that was closely associated with Mr Mond’s charity trusteeships.

Civil Society Media reports a Charity Commission spokesperson has said “The outcome of this case brings more clarity to trustees’ appropriate use of social media, underlining the need for all trustees to act in the best interests of their charity including while posting in a personal capacity. We note this judgment, and will learn from it.” 

For the full judgment see Gary Mond v The Charity Commission for England and Wales.