Decision

Charity Inquiry: Rigpa Fellowship

Updated 30 December 2020

This decision was withdrawn on 6 January 2023

This report has been archived in line with our policy as it is over 2 years old.

Applies to England and Wales

This report was amended on 30 December 2020. Two paragraphs were inserted into the original report published on 20 November 2020 and one sentence was removed due to repetition. These amendments were made to add clarity and context after the Commission considered representations from a member of the public.

The charity

Rigpa Fellowship (‘the charity’) was registered on 14 February 1980. It is governed by a Trust Deed dated 11 November 1979 as amended by a Deed dated 25 August 1987 and a Resolution dated 31 July 2019.

The charity’s entry can be found on the register of charities.

Events leading up to the opening of the inquiry

In August 2017, the Commission was notified of the existence of a letter which had been published on the internet.

The letter, dated 14 July 2017, was signed by eight students of Sogyal Lakar, who was the Spiritual Director of the charity at the time was the letter was written.

The letter contained numerous accounts describing mental, physical and sexual abuse which were alleged to have taken place over several years.

The letter was examined, and a Regulatory Compliance case was opened in August 2017. The purpose of the Regulatory Compliance case was to gather evidence and information that could be used in determining whether a Statutory Inquiry under s46 of the Charities Act 2011 should be opened.

The letter dated 14 July 2017 formed part of the information considered within the Regulatory Compliance case and provides the context for the events which followed its publication.

During the Regulatory Compliance stage, the Commission engaged with the trustees of the charity and gathered evidence both from the trustees and from individuals with knowledge of the events described in the letter of 14 July 2017.

Shortly after the Commission started engaging with the trustees of the charity, the Commission was informed that the charity had engaged a firm of lawyers, Lewis Silkin LLP, to undertake an investigation into the allegations of mental, physical and sexual abuse made in the letter referred to in paragraph 3 above.

Lewis Silkin LLP were formally appointed on 19 December 2017.

The aims of the Lewis Silkin investigation were as follows:

• to ascertain in more detail the specific allegations against Sogyal Lakar and to identify the potential witnesses to those allegations
• to understand the extent to which senior members of the charity were aware of these allegations and whether they were dealt with appropriately at the time
• to enable the charity to take a first step towards healing and reconciliation with those who feel they have been harmed, by listening to the experiences in an open, impartial and sensitive way
• to provide an independent assessment of what the charity needs to learn and change in the light of these experiences, in terms of structures, processes and the like

On 22 August 2018, Lewis Silkin LLP submitted a copy of their report (“the LS Report”) to the trustees of the charity.

The LS Report, which runs to over 50 pages, provides a comprehensive account of the investigation undertaken by Lewis Silkin LLP and resulted in an extensive list of recommendations. The Executive Summary is set out below:

Executive summary

“Whilst I have seen evidence that many people feel that they have benefitted greatly from having Sogyal Lakar as their teacher, individual experiences are very different. There are varying degrees of closeness to Sogyal Lakar, with the closest relationships regularly referred to as the “inner circle”. The experiences of some of the members of the inner circle are very different from the experiences of many of those who are less close.

Not all of the allegations against Sogyal Lakar are upheld, as explained in the body of the report below, but based on the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities:

• some students of Sogyal Lakar (who were part of the ‘inner circle’, as described later in this report) have been subjected to serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse by him; and
• there were senior individuals within the charity who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk

A number of serious concerns arise out of my findings which, in my opinion, must be addressed. Recommendations and proposed action points are set out at the conclusion of this report. “

Following the publication of the LS Report, the Commission continued to engage with the trustees of the charity and to monitor progress in respect of the implementation of the recommendations made by Lewis Silkin LLP.

Of particular concern to the Commission, were the findings in the LS Report that “there were senior individuals within Rigpa who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk.”

The Regulatory Compliance case concluded when it was determined that insufficient progress had been made to address the serious matters that the LS Report had identified. Accordingly, it was decided that a statutory inquiry under s46 of the Charities Act 2011 should be opened to address these failings.

On 8 November 2018 the Commission opened a statutory inquiry into the charity under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011.

The inquiry closed with the publication of this report.

Issues under Investigation

The inquiry was established to consider the following regulatory issues:

• the seriousness of the findings and allegations of abuse reported to the Charity Commission and contained within the LS Report dated 22 August 2018 and concerns over the extent to which the charity currently provides a safe environment for its beneficiaries, staff and volunteers
• the failure to report serious incidents in particular those relating to physical or sexual abuse
• serious concerns about the governance and the willingness and capability of the trustees to effect meaningful change to the charity’s safeguarding culture and processes
• public trust and confidence concerns due to high profile media interest and coverage
• regulatory concerns about the extent to which the charity has adequate financial controls

Findings

The seriousness of the findings and allegations of abuse reported to the Charity Commission and contained within the LS Report dated 22 August 2018

The inquiry found that some students had been subjected to mental, physical and sexual abuse by Sogyal Lakar. The inquiry also found that there were senior individuals within the charity at that time who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, which exposed the charity’s beneficiaries to risk of harm.

Patrick Gaffney

The inquiry met with Mr Patrick Gaffney. Mr Gaffney was one of the original trustees of the charity and was one of the late Sogyal Lakar’s closest students. He appears to have played a primary role in Sogyal Lakar’s involvement with the charity during this time. The Commission was advised that he resigned from his position as trustee on 31 August 2018.

In late 1994, a woman referred to as ‘Janice Doe’ lodged a lawsuit against Sogyal Lakar and Rigpa in the United States. The plaintiff had alleged physical, sexual and mental abuse by Sogyal Lakar. Based on the LS Report and other documents in the Commission’s possession, it is apparent that Mr Gaffney was heavily involved in the charity’s response to the Janice Doe allegations at the time. This is clear evidence that Mr Gaffney was aware of earlier allegations concerning Sogyal Lakar’s conduct. This means he should have been particularly vigilant and careful, ensuring that appropriate systems were put in place to deal with such allegations and any allegations were dealt with scrupulously and investigated appropriately with the necessary action taken as a result.

On 15 January 2018, the Commission met with the trustees including Mr Gaffney. During the meeting, Mr Gaffney discussed physical acts by Sogyal Lakar towards others, saying that he wouldn’t characterise these as violent. He said that these were only occasional; he had only seen around half a dozen incidences which were meant as a teaching method with no intention to harm. Mr Gaffney stated that he had never received any complaints from those who had been on the receiving end of such acts. In the meeting, Mr Gaffney appeared unable or unwilling to recognise the serious nature of the allegations that had been made and the lack of appropriate action taken.

Based on the information in the LS Report and further evidence provided to the inquiry, it is apparent that Mr Gaffney did not act appropriately when provided with allegations about Sogyal Lakar harming beneficiaries of the charity. Mr Gaffney had either failed to recognise or sought to downplay the seriousness of the allegations.

The inquiry found that Mr Gaffney was unfit to be a trustee of the charity or for charities generally and was subsequently disqualified from acting as a trustee a period of eight years under the provisions of s181A of the Charities Act 2011.

Susan Burrows

The inquiry also met with another trustee, Susan Burrows. Ms Burrows was one of two UK based trustees of the charity who, together with two American based counterparts, commissioned the LS Report.

The inquiry found that Ms Burrows had knowledge of instances and allegations of improper acts and sexual and physical abuse by Sogyal Lakar against students at the charity. Ms Burrows failed to take appropriate action in response to this information.

At a meeting with the inquiry on 23 January 2019 Ms Burrows was specifically asked whether anyone at all had previously told her of instances of abuse concerning Sogyal Lakar and she stated “absolutely not” and indicated that she had no knowledge of the allegations against Sogyal Lakar until the letter dated 14 July 2017 was published.

On 18 November 1994, the charity published a document which commented on the Janice Doe (see earlier paragraph) case in the following terms:

“this complaint may be exploited by the media, perhaps in extreme and scandalous ways” and further “we are not in a position to comment on this matter or respond to the allegations.”

This charity circular was signed by several key Rigpa figures including Ms Burrows. It is therefore apparent that Ms Burrows must have been aware of the Janice Doe allegations.

Similarly, the inquiry found that Ms Burrows had met with a former trustee in May 2007 to discuss an allegation of abuse made by an individual described as “Student 27” in the LS Report.

At a meeting with the inquiry on 23 January 2019, Ms Burrows was asked whether allegations of sexual abuse had been raised at the meetings she attended in May 2007 with a former trustee. In response Ms Burrows stated to the Commission that no allegations of sexual abuse had been raised at those meetings. Ms Burrows characterised the relationship between Sogyal Lakar and Student 27 as being one between consenting adults and appeared unable or unwilling to recognise the serious nature of the allegations that had been made and the lack of appropriate action taken.

Based on the information in the LS Report and further evidence obtained, the inquiry found that Ms Burrows had not acted appropriately when provided with allegations about Sogyal Lakar harming beneficiaries of the charity. Ms Burrows either failed to recognise or sought to downplay the seriousness of the allegations.

The inquiry found that Ms Burrows was unfit to be a trustee of the charity or for charities generally and was removed as a trustee of the charity and all charities under the provisions of s79(4) of the Charities Act 2011.

Concerns over the extent to which the charity provided a safe environment for its beneficiaries, staff and volunteers

The inquiry found that the charity’s safeguarding policies and procedures at that time were inadequate and insufficiently robust to protect beneficiaries in the UK from the risks of serious harm. In particular, the former Trustees of the charity placed too much reliance on policies and procedures produced by the international Rigpa body and provided links to these policies on the charity’s website. The policies and procedures produced by the international Rigpa body were not found to adequately address potential safeguarding risks to beneficiaries in the UK (for example by blurring the distinction between consent and submission and placing too much responsibility for safeguarding on the beneficiary rather than the teacher). The former Trustees did not consider or devise safeguarding policies on their own and deferred to the international Rigpa body. The former Trustees were insufficiently rigorous in their consideration and analysis of the policies and procedures produced by the international Rigpa body. The former Trustees should have ensured that any international policies referred to were sufficient for UK regulations and law.

However, the inquiry found that the current Trustees had taken independent professional advice and implemented new safeguarding policies and procedures tailored specifically to the operations of the UK charity. The Commission expects that the Trustees will comply fully with these new safeguarding policies and procedures and monitor their effectiveness in protecting beneficiaries from the risks of serious harm.

In addition, the Commission found that the current Trustees had put in place measures to effectively sever the governance link between the UK charity and its international counterparts to enable the UK charity to operate independently of overseas direction.

The failure to report serious incidents in particular those relating to physical or sexual abuse

In 1994, the Commission received information relating to allegations of serious sexual abuse on the part of Mr Lakar. Allegations of such abuse were discussed at a meeting between the Commission and all four of the then trustees on 9 November 1994. It is not possible to provide a definitive analysis of the Commission’s engagement with the Charity in 1994, as internal records have since been destroyed. Some documentation dating back to 1994 was provided to the Commission during the course of this regulatory engagement with the Charity, but this documentation does not provide a full picture of the Commission’s engagement in 1994. On balance, the Commission appears to have accepted assurances provided by the majority of the trustees serving at the time and taken no further action at that time.

The Commission has seen no evidence that it received any further reports of serious incidents, complaints or concerns at the Charity in the period following this engagement in 1994 up to 2017 that may have given us cause to re-engage with the Charity.

The former trustees did submit, in August 2017, a serious incident report in relation to the letter by students dated 14 July 2017 but they did so after the Commission had already established contact with them regarding the matter.

The inquiry found examples of allegations of mental, physical and sexual abuse prior to August 2017 that had not been reported to the Commission. This failure to report serious incidents amounts to mismanagement and/or misconduct by the former trustees appointed at the time.

Serious concerns about the governance and the willingness and capability of the trustees to effect meaningful change to the charity’s safeguarding culture and processes

The inquiry found that some former trustees and senior management figures at the charity were responsible for acts of mismanagement and misconduct in relation to the governance of the charity. In particular, some key former members of the charity’s governing body had failed to demonstrate the willingness and capability to effect meaningful change to the charity’s safeguarding culture and processes. However, the inquiry also found that the current trustees have adopted new safeguarding policies and procedures to better safeguard the charity’s beneficiaries

Public trust and confidence concerns due to high profile media interest and coverage

The inquiry found that misconduct and mismanagement by former senior figures at the charity had led to the risk that public trust and confidence in the charity and charities generally would be adversely affected.

Regulatory concerns about the extent to which the charity had adequate financial controls

The inquiry also found evidence that in 2017, £12,000 in cash had been withdrawn from the charity’s bank account and into the custody of a trustee on a single day. At the inquiry meeting held on 15 January 2018 the trustees explained that these funds were passed to the trustee because the charity bank account mandate was not up to date. The only trustee able to sign cheques at the time was unavailable to do so due to illness. The trustees had then decided to transfer £12,000 to the trustee to enable that individual to reimburse expenses claims made by volunteers at the annual Easter Retreat. At a further meeting with the Commission on 23 October 2019 the trustee concerned indicated that this cash had been passed to an employee of the charity and placed in the charity’s safe. The trustees indicated to the Commission that any expenditure of charitable funds utilised in this way was receipted and subsequently provided supporting documentation to the Commission. Handling large amounts of cash is not good practice because of the risk that the person entrusted with the cash could misappropriate it.

Charity trustees have a duty to ensure that charity assets are protected from the risk of misapplication or misappropriation. The trustees should have ensured that there were adequate financial controls in place and proper mechanisms for the reimbursement of legitimate expenses. However, the inquiry also found that the current trustees have adopted new financial controls policies and procedures to better safeguard the charity’s assets.

Conclusions

The Commission concluded that there was mismanagement and misconduct in the administration of the charity, particularly in regard to how former trustees responded to and managed safeguarding concerns and their inability to create a safe culture within the charity which exposed some beneficiaries to harm. The seriousness of these findings resulted in the Commission exercising its powers to disqualify and remove two of the former trustees.

Both the former and current trustees cooperated with the inquiry and recognised the Commission’s serious regulatory concerns. As a result of the Commission’s actions during the inquiry, the charity now has a new board of trustees in place and has adopted new safeguarding policies and procedures to better safeguard its beneficiaries.

Regulatory Action Taken

During the inquiry the Commission used powers under s52 and s47 of the Charities Act 2011 to obtain information.

In respect of Patrick Gaffney, he was disqualified as a charity trustee of the charity and of all charities for a period of eight years under the provisions of s181A of the Charities Act 2011. Mr Gaffney’s name was added to the list of disqualified trustees on 12 April 2019.

In respect of Susan Burrows, she was removed as a trustee of the charity and all charities under the provisions of s79(4) of the Charities Act 2011. Ms Burrows was removed from her position by the inquiry and entered onto the list of removed trustees on 20 September 2019. She is also permanently disqualified from serving as a trustee or senior manager of any charity in England and Wales, under section 178 of the Charities Act.

Issues for the wider sector

Governance

Trustees are representatives of the charity they govern or the charitable funds they are responsible for, in the charity sector. Trustees must be aware of and act in accordance with their legal duties. The conduct of trustees can be a key driver of public trust and confidence in the charity sector. When the conduct of trustees falls below the standards expected there can be damage to the reputation of individual trustees, the charity and possibly the wider charity sector.

Reporting duties to the Commission (including Serious Incident Reporting)

A serious incident is an adverse event, whether actual or alleged, which results in or risks significant:

• harm to your charity’s beneficiaries, staff, volunteers or others who come into contact with your charity through its work (who are collectively referred to throughout this guidance as people who come into contact with your charity through its work)
• loss of your charity’s money or assets
• damage to your charity’s property
• harm to your charity’s work or reputation

A serious incident should be reported to us immediately, not just on completion of the annual return. More information on reporting serious incidents can be found on GOV.UK.

Safeguarding and protecting people

You need to make a report to the Commission if a serious safeguarding risk materialises. This will usually be if any of the following occur:

• incidents of abuse or mistreatment (alleged or actual) of beneficiaries of the charity (adults or children) which have resulted in or risk significant harm to them
• this happened while they were under the care of the charity
• someone connected with the charity, for example a trustee, staff member or volunteer, was responsible for the abuse or mistreatment (alleged or actual)
• other incidents of abuse or mistreatment (alleged or actual) of people who come into contact with the charity through its work, which have resulted in or risk significant harm to them and are connected to the charity’s activities
• breaches of procedures or policies at the charity which have put people who come into contact with it through its work at significant risk of harm, including failure to carry out relevant vetting checks which would have identified that a person is disqualified in law from holding their position within the charity. This might be, for example, because they are disqualified under safeguarding legislation from working with children and/or adults at risk

The above may include incidents in the workplace that have resulted in or risk significant harm to trustees, staff or volunteers.

As well as reporting to us, you should also notify the police, local authority and/or relevant regulator or statutory agency responsible for dealing with these incidents.