24 April 2014 / David White

Categories: Features , Freedom of Information

printer

mail-detail

A chilling effect?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

David White reflects on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commission

Judgment has recently been handed down by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, [2014] All ER (D) 240 (Mar) and its decision to dismiss Kennedy’s appeal will make welcome news for many public authorities.

The facts

Kennedy, a journalist for The Times newspaper, had requested information held by the Charity Commission to investigate three inquiries it had conducted in relation to the Mariam Appeal. The Mariam Appeal was launched in 1998 by MP George Galloway following the imposition by the UN of sanctions against Iraq. In 2003, allegations were made that improper donations had become funds of the Appeal which prompted the Charity Commission to carry out three inquiries.

The request for information was made under s 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) which grants individuals a general right to request information held by public authorities. The Charity Commission, as a public authority, is obliged to fulfil any requests for information

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

A chilling effect?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

David White reflects on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commission

Judgment has recently been handed down by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, [2014] All ER (D) 240 (Mar) and its decision to dismiss Kennedy’s appeal will make welcome news for many public authorities.

The facts

Kennedy, a journalist for The Times newspaper, had requested information held by the Charity Commission to investigate three inquiries it had conducted in relation to the Mariam Appeal. The Mariam Appeal was launched in 1998 by MP George Galloway following the imposition by the UN of sanctions against Iraq. In 2003, allegations were made that improper donations had become funds of the Appeal which prompted the Charity Commission to carry out three inquiries.

The request for information was made under s 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) which grants individuals a general right to request information held by public authorities. The Charity Commission, as a public authority, is obliged to fulfil any requests for information

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?

Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle

NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children

A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings

NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown

A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996

back-to-top-scroll