When should a charity sue?
Howard Lake | 21 May 2009 | Blogs
Domestic violence charity Refuge is to sue both the Crown Prosecution Service and Greater Manchester Police following the murder of Sabina Akhtar by her husband Malik Mannan last year.
Akhtar was tragically stabbed to death after reporting her husband’s violence and death threats towards her but they released him.
This will effectively be a test case for human rights legislation and Refuge chief Executive, Sandra Horley, certainly makes a good point. She believes that the bodies in question have a duty of care to protect people, which clearly did not happen in this case.
Advertisement
I also find her position on why Refuge are taking this action to be, sadly, probably the best way to go to get a result. She suggests that “the only way to change policy and practice is to hit them where it hurts: in their wallets”.
Other organisations, like Amnesty, have a long history of legal interventions which seek to protect the human rights of individuals. They have campaigned to have prisoners released, torturers brought to justice and death row prisoners pardoned (among other causes).
Many would argue that these are all justifiable legal interventions as they seek to make the world a lot better for the individuals concerned and a little better for all of us by association.
But I wonder how long it will be before charities become more frequently involved in legal interventions when the motives aren’t quite so clear cut.
For example, in August of 2008, two Christian men were warned by police not to hand out faith-based leaflets in a Muslim area of Birmingham. In fact, the police officers concerned told the pair that they were committing a hate crime and not to be surprised if they got beaten up for doing it again.
I think we can all see where this argument falls apart and it’s hardly surprising that the two men wanted to take their case further. But this is where it starts to get a little grey for me. The Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund financed the resultant court action which initially sought a public apology.
All makes sense so far. But then, lawyers acting for the men said that they were entitled to bring a Human Rights Act claim against West Midlands Police for breach of their European convention rights. And, all of a sudden the pair are seeking damages as well as their apology.
Is it just me or does the fact that people want money rather than justice colour how we think and feel about such actions? In today’s climate, with MP’s expenses plastered all over the place, are we less inclined to extend sympathy, even to good causes, when we think someone is just on the make?
From a branding and communications perspective, charities must ensure that if they are going to resort to legal redress (which can be perfectly valid), their motives and actions and must be seen to be aligned to their core purpose and not financially motivated. Without the underpinnings of trust to build upon, fundraising becomes an impossible task.
About Howard Lake
Howard Lake is consultant editor of UK Fundraising. He founded the site in 1994 and successfully sold it in 2022. As director of Giving X Ltd he is exploring growing giving on a massive scale.
He is the founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.