Decision

Charity Inquiry: Lantern of Knowledge Educational Trust

Published 21 August 2020

This decision was withdrawn on 30 August 2022

This report has been archived as it is over 2 years old.

The charity

Lantern of Knowledge Educational Trust (‘the charity’) was entered onto the register of charities (‘the register’) on 15 September 2005. It is governed by a Declaration of Trust (the ‘governing document’) which was adopted on 20 September 2004, as amended by a supplemental deed dated 14 September 2005.

The charity’s objects include advancing the Islamic religion, advancing education and promoting religious harmony.

The charity’s primary activity is the provision of education through the running of an independent school, the Lantern of Knowledge Secondary School (‘the school’), located in East London. The school caters for boys between the ages of 11 to 16. The school’s proprietors are the trustees of the charity, and as the school is a registered independent school, it is regulated by the Department for Education (‘the DfE’) and inspected by Ofsted.

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

Issues under investigation

On 25 May 2017, a former employee of the charity, Umar Ahmed Haque (‘individual A’), was charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, Terrorism Act 2006 and the Criminal Law Act 1977. These offences related to the preparation of terrorist acts, possession of terrorism material and conspiracy to possess a firearm.

Individual A was employed on a part-time basis at the charity as a teacher from April 2015 to January 2016. None of the above charges related to individual A’s time at the charity.

On 21 November 2017, individual A was further charged with two offences under the Terrorism Act 2006. One of these charges, namely the dissemination of terrorist material pursuant to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006, related to individual A showing children at the school a terrorist propaganda video. Further information is provided later in this report under the ‘findings’ section.

In addition to individual A, the Commission had concerns in relation to the findings of an Ofsted emergency inspection carried out at the school on 15 June 2017, in which the school was judged not to have met all of the independent school standards that were checked as part of the inspection.

The emergency inspection report (‘report A’), published by Ofsted on 25 September 2017, raised a number of regulatory concerns relating to the management of the school. Report A explained that “the School’s leaders have not ensured that they know and check that they are compliant with all the independent school standards. As a result they have not ensured that these standards are met consistently or that the wellbeing of pupils is actively promoted.”

In light of the Commission’s regulatory concerns, on 30 November 2017, the Commission carried out a Compliance Visit and Inspection (‘CVI’) to the charity’s premises (in company with the DfE) and met with the trustees and Senior Leadership Team (‘SLT’) responsible for the management of the charity (and the school). The charity’s advisor was also present.

On 15 January 2018 individual A’s trial commenced at the Central Criminal Court. On the charge of disseminating terrorist material to children at the school, individual A entered a plea of not guilty ^{[footnote 1]}.

On 29 January 2018, Ofsted published a further report (‘report B’) following a standard inspection to the school on 12 – 14 December 2017. Report B shows that the overall effectiveness of the school was judged to be “requires improvement” – the second lowest of the four standards awarded by Ofsted. The school’s previous standard inspection, carried out by Ofsted in November 2015, rated the school as being “outstanding”.

Regarding this decline, report B concluded that the “governors have not held school leaders to account for the decline in standards”. Report B went on to further state that the governors “have too readily accepted information from school leaders without insisting that it is rigorously analysed.”

On 17 February 2018 the Commission opened a statutory inquiry (‘the inquiry’) in accordance with section 46 of the Act into the charity. The Commission’s decision to open the inquiry was communicated to the trustees on 19 February 2018.

Scope of the Inquiry

The scope of the inquiry considered the administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees, including but not limited to, the management of staff with access to children/young people and the charity’s policies and procedures relating to safeguarding, and more generally.

The inquiry’s role was not to investigate whether any crimes had been committed, that was a matter for the police and/or other authorities. The Commission’s role as charity regulator is to oversee charity trustees’ compliance with charity law duties and responsibilities.

The Commission announced its inquiry into the charity following the conclusion of individual A’s trial on 2 March 2018. The Commission did not previously make the opening of the inquiry or its prior regulatory engagement with the charity public to avoid prejudicing the police’s investigation and the subsequent criminal trial.

Findings

The administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees, including but not limited to, the management of staff with access to children/young people and the charity’s policies and procedures relating to safeguarding

Individual A’s role at the charity

The inquiry established that individual A was employed at the charity, from April 2015 to January 2016, as an Islamic Studies teacher.

In December 2015 individual A resigned from his position and his employment at the school terminated on 11 January 2016.

By virtue of his role, individual A was carrying out regulated activity ^{[footnote 2]} at the charity. Regulated activity is work which involves close and unsupervised contact with vulnerable groups including children.

Whilst employed at the charity the trustees stated that no complaints (either formal or informal) were made against individual A. The trustees also confirmed that no complaints had been received following the high level of media interest and conclusion of individual A’s trial in March 2018.

Individual A’s conduct at the charity

From liaison with the police, the Commission became aware that in December 2015 individual A showed a propaganda video, relating to the proscribed terrorist organisation Daesh (‘the video’), during one of his Islamic Studies classes. This class consisted of 18 children.

The Home Office describe ^{[footnote 3]} Daesh (also known as Islamic State, IS, ISIL or ISIS) as “a brutal Sunni Islamist terrorist group which adheres to a global violent jihadist ideology, following an extreme interpretation of Islam, which is anti-Western and promotes sectarian violence. Daesh aims to establish an Islamic State governed by Sharia law and impose their rule on people using violence and extortion.”

At his trial individual A gave evidence that he did show the video to children in his class. However, individual A pleaded not guilty to the offence as he did “not think that showing that one video would’ve led to any one of them (the children in his class) going out and committing acts of terror in the future.”

On 2 March 2018, individual A was found guilty on multiple counts of terrorism charges and later sentenced to life in prison. On the charge of disseminating terrorist material to children at the school, the jury were unable to reach a verdict. As a result, the judge presiding over the case ordered that the charge should ‘lie on file’. This means that with no verdict, the proceedings are not formally terminated. The power to allow a charge to lie on file is used when:

• the defendant has pleaded guilty or has been convicted of other counts in the same indictment; or
• the defendant has pleaded guilty or has been convicted on counts on another indictment; and
• convictions for the remaining offences would have no significant impact on the sentence; and
• it is no longer in the public interest to proceed on the remaining matters

The Charity’s safeguarding policies and due diligence of individual A

A review of the charity’s safeguarding policies show that they are comprehensive, and the inquiry considers were appropriate for an educational charity of this size running a school.

As part of the inquiry’s review of the charity’s records relating to individual A’s appointment, the trustees provided a number of documents. These included, but are not limited to:

(i) individual A’s application form for the role

(ii) a copy of a Disclosure and Barring Service (‘DBS’) check (dated December 2012) provided by individual A

(iii) two references obtained by the charity dated 13 May 2015 and 14 May 2015

(iv) a copy of individual A’s DBS check, carried out by the charity, dated 27 July 2015

The inquiry was also provided with a copy of individual A’s certificate having successfully completed the Safeguarding Awareness Training dated 11 May 2015. In addition to this, the trustees explained that due to the local availability of Prevent training, individual A did not get the opportunity to attend the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (WRAP) prior to his resignation.

Following the opening of the inquiry the trustees, of their own volition, appointed an independent reviewer (‘the reviewer’) to review individual A’s employment at the charity. A copy of the report, dated 11 October 2018, was provided to the inquiry on 5 November 2018.

The reviewer concluded that there were areas in the charity’s processes, such as recruitment, employment and dealing with complaints, which could be strengthened. As such the Reviewer made fourteen recommendations.

At a meeting between the trustees and the inquiry in April 2019, the trustees informed the inquiry that thirteen of the fourteen recommendations had been fully implemented. Whilst the fourteenth recommendation had not been fully implemented it was in the process of being actioned by the trustees.

The inquiry also examined records relating to individual A’s recruitment and employment. The inquiry noted that on his application form individual A answered ‘no’ to a question about having any cautions or convictions. This was not the case as documented on his 2012 DBS check which he provided to the charity as part of his application. In addition, the DBS check carried out by the charity recorded that individual A had convictions dating back to November 2014 and June 2015.

Despite this, the inquiry saw no evidence whatsoever to show that individual A was challenged as to why he had falsely declared he had no convictions or cautions on his application.

The trustees informed the inquiry that they were not involved in individual A’s recruitment, nor were they aware of his prior convictions.

Whilst the caution/convictions did not preclude individual A from working in regulated activity, it is up to all employers to decide on the appropriate response to a candidate who has criminal convictions or cautions depending on the nature of the role for which they have applied. In this case the trustees informed the inquiry that had they been aware of individual A’s convictions they would not have employed him.

The charity’s staff recruitment procedure has now changed to ensure trustees have oversight of the application and interview process and it now has a dedicated section on the recruitment of ex-offenders.

Should this situation arise in the future the trustees should refer to and follow the steps set out in the recruitment policy before a recruitment decision is made. This should also include if false information is provided by an applicant.

Adhering to the independent school standards

Trustees are required to comply with the law as it relates to their charity and its activities. In the case of the charity, this requires adherence to the independent school standards as set by the DfE (and inspected by Ofsted).

Published Ofsted inspection reports relating to the school show that since 2017, Ofsted have rated the school as being either ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’ which are the two lowest ratings that Ofsted can award to an institution. In addition to these ratings, and as set out above, an emergency inspection carried out at the school on 15 June 2017 found that the school was not meeting all the independent school standards that were checked during that inspection.

Prior to June 2017, the school had been inspected in 2010, 2013, 2015 and 2016 and judged by Ofsted to be ‘satisfactory’ (on two occasions), ‘outstanding’, and having met all “the independent school standards that were checked”. The inquiry notes that in relation to these inspections, safeguarding was judged to be effective by Ofsted.

On 4 March 2019, Ofsted published a further report (‘report C’) following a standard inspection to the school in January 2019. Report C concluded that the overall effectiveness of the school was ‘inadequate’, which is a lower rating than the previous report from December 2017 (report B).

Of concern to the inquiry was the presence of an inappropriate book, found by Ofsted’s inspectors, in the school’s library. Report C states:

“On the first day of the inspection, a book which contained text that contradicted British values was found in the library. Leaders and staff were not able to provide inspectors with an explanation as to how the book came to be in the library. There was no school stamp on the inside cover.

“The book’s contents promote violence and intolerance towards groups protected by law. An excerpt from the book states ‘Homosexuals advocate a view of human relationships that is at odds with the natural order and stability of human society. Tolerating homosexuality and promiscuity means encouraging them and pushing more and more people to practice them.’ Another excerpt states ‘A person who is married and commits adultery, and who either confesses or whose act is proven, pays for it with his life.”

At the time of report C’s publication, the inquiry was in contact with the trustees on an unrelated matter. Despite this, the trustees did not make the Commission aware of the Ofsted inspection nor the publication of its report. It was not until 22 March 2019 that the inquiry came to learn of report C and subsequently contacted the trustees regarding its findings and conclusions.

At the meeting between the trustees and the inquiry in April 2019, the trustees stated that they were appealing the findings of the Ofsted inspection and were still reviewing whether the matter should be reported to the Commission, under the Commission’s serious incident reporting regime. At the meeting, the inquiry referred to the trustees’ complaint (to Ofsted) in which the trustees stated that damage would be done to the school’s reputation should the report not be removed. The trustees’ complaint to Ofsted in this regard was not upheld and report C has remained on Ofsted’s website since the date it was published (i.e. 4 March 2019).

In addition, the trustees had previously been directed to the Commission’s guidance on the reporting of serious incidents. The Commission’s guidance states that trustees should make a report to the Commission should adverse findings, following an inspection by Ofsted, damage a charity’s reputation or public confidence in the charity.

Whilst the inquiry acknowledges that a serious incident report was later submitted by the trustees, (on 13 May 2019) the Commission’s guidance makes it clear that this should have happened at the time the Ofsted report was issued.

Overall, Ofsted’s reports show that since 2015, the school has gone from being a grade 1 (outstanding) school to a grade 4 (inadequate) school; three of the four current trustees have been in office throughout this time.

The inquiry notes that a progress monitoring inspection took place at the school on 3 July 2019 and it was judged that the school met all the independent school standards that were checked during that inspection

The financial management of the charity

Whilst the financial management of the charity did not form part of the initial scope of the inquiry, the charity’s entry on the register shows that the charity’s annual return, trustees’ annual report and accounts (‘annual accounting documents’) for the financial year ending 30 September 2018 were filed 45 and 49 days late respectively. Failing to ensure the charity’s annual accounting documents are filed on time is a breach of the trustees’ statutory duties under sections 162, 163, 164 and 169 of the Act and is misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. It may also be a criminal offence under section 173 of the Act. Trustees have joint and several liability, so all the trustees are responsible for filing the annual accounting documents. In addition, the trustees also failed to comply with clause 22 of the charity’s governing document which constitutes a breach of duty and evidence of misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. Clause 22 requires the trustees to comply with their obligations under the Act with regards to the filing of annual documents.

The conduct of the trustees

The trustees of the charity complied with the orders and directions issued by the Commission to obtain information.

However, as evidenced by the findings above, the inquiry found that the conduct of the trustees fell below that which the Commission expects of trustees and that there had been misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. This includes:

(i) failure to adhere to the independent school standards

(ii) failure to ensure compliance with the charity’s own internal policies

(iii) failure to file annual accounting documents on time with the Commission

(iv) failure to comply with the charity’s governing document

Following the opening of the inquiry, the trustees expressed their “disappointment and concern” with the Commission’s decision in this regard. However, despite representations that they intended to appeal the Commission’s decision to open the inquiry, they did not submit an appeal.

In a letter to the Commission, dated 5 March 2018 (‘the letter’), the trustees stated that the opening of the inquiry was “unjustified” and the need for it had diminished given that individual A had been found “not guilty” on the charge relating to the school.

In response to the trustees’ concerns, the inquiry stated that whilst individual A was not convicted, he did admit to showing the video to children in his class but argued that it was not for terrorist purposes as per the criminal charge against him. Therefore, the Commission rejected the trustees’ view that the inquiry was unjustified.

In addition to the trustees’ letter, the inquiry also refers to the charity’s public statement (as referenced earlier) following the conclusion of individual A’s trial which stated “it is noteworthy that there was only one charge [individual A] was accused of in court which related to his time at our school for which the jury could not come to a judgement and hence he was found not guilty of it. The remaining charges he was found guilty of have no connection with our school at all.” Not only was it factually incorrect to say that individual A had been found not guilty (on the charge relating to the school), the press statement made no reference to individual A’s witness testimony, during his criminal trial, to showing Daesh related material to children, at the charity’s premises, during one of his classes.

On these points, the inquiry is critical of the trustees’ conduct and their failure to recognise the seriousness of the matter. The fact that Daesh related material was shown to the charity’s beneficiaries was not in dispute, and something which the trustees were fully aware of as set out in the inquiry opening letter (and through media reporting of the trial). The trustees failed to consider the implications of showing the video, given its content, to the charity’s beneficiaries, irrespective of whether or not doing so constituted a criminal offence.

The fact that individual A was not convicted of a terrorist offence in connection with the video does not allay the inquiry’s concerns about the administration of this charity. It is important that the trustees of a school exert effective control over the conduct of its teachers so as to be confident that any material shared with the school’s pupils is appropriate and does not risk harming them. The trustees’ response to the Commission’s concerns regarding the showing of the video to pupils at the school and their persistent references to the fact that a criminal conviction was not secured is not considered to be a justifiable position to maintain. The Commission maintains that a reasonable body of trustees and/or members of the public would have considered that showing the contents of the video to a group of children was, irrespective of whether or not it constituted a criminal offence, entirely inappropriate.

Whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law

The inquiry found that the trustees had not complied with or fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law.

However, the inquiry notes that since the Commission’s regulatory engagement with the charity, changes and improvements have been made by the trustees in relation to safeguarding and the general administration and management of the charity.

Conclusions

By showing the children in his class pro-Daesh material, individual A grossly abused the position of trust he held at the charity.

In his witness evidence, individual A recognised at the time of showing the video that “it was not a good idea”, but instead of pursuing the matter (i.e. the request that a child wanted to see a Daesh video) as a potential safeguarding concern, individual A exploited an opportunity to show children in the charity’s care the video which promoted the ideology and tactics of a proscribed terrorist organisation

The public rightly expect charities, particularly those working with children and young people, to be safe places, free from abuse or harm. In light of individual A’s actions this was not the case within this charity.

The Commission concluded that there was misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity’s administration by the trustees.

However, the Commission recognises that the trustees have taken a number of steps to address the failures in the charity’s governance. This includes changes in the SLT and instituting an independent review of individual A’s employment at the charity. The trustees also carried out a review into the school and have made changes to strengthen its safeguarding practices.

Regulatory Action Taken

During the inquiry, the Commission liaised closely with multiple agencies including the police and educational regulators. Information was also exchanged with them under sections 54 and 56 of the Act.

The Commission exercised its regulatory powers under sections 47 and 52 of the Act on multiple occasions to obtain further information and copy documents from the trustees.

On 9 April 2019, as part of the inquiry, the Commission revisited the charity’s premises and met with the trustees.

On 14 February 2020, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 84 of the Act directing the trustees of the charity, by order, to take specified actions. In summary, these actions include:

• ensuring that the charity’s Annual Return, Trustees’ Annual Report and Accounts for financial year end 30 September 2019 are filed on time in accordance with the obligations under the Act
• conducting a review of the charity’s governing document, taking professional advice as appropriate, and update and/or amend the governing document in accordance with the outcome of the review
• complying with the independent school standards (including associated requirements) and any other relevant legislative provisions with regards to the running of an independent school

The section 84 order was made as the Commission was satisfied that there has been misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.

On 15 January 2020, the Commission issued notice of its intention to issue three of four of the charity’s current trustees with an official warning under section 75A(1) of the Act.

On 12 February 2020, the trustees made representations against the issuing of the official warning. These representations were considered by an independent reviewer as part of the Commission’s decision review process. The outcome of the decision review concluded that the official warning should be issued, with modifications taking into consideration the representations made.

On 29 April 2020, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power to issue the official warning. The official warning was issued to the charity’s trustees in respect of their failure to adhere to the independent school standards.

The official warning sets out that the trustees must take all reasonable steps to:

(i) comply with the independent school standards (including associated requirements) and any other relevant legislative provisions with regards to the running of an independent school

Following the closure of the inquiry, the Commission will monitor the trustees’ compliance with the section 84 order and official warning.

As part of powers introduced by the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016, and by virtue of individual A’s conviction they are automatically disqualified for life from serving as a trustee or senior manager of any charity in England and Wales, whether registered with the Commission or not. It was not therefore necessary for the inquiry to consider individual A’s suitability to hold the position of trustee and/or senior management function in the future.

Issues for the wider sector

The purpose of this section is to highlight the broader issues arising from the inquiry of the issues raised publicly that may have relevance for other charities. It is not intended as further comment on the charity in addition to the findings and conclusions set out in the earlier sections of this report but is included because of their wider applicability and interest to the charity sector.

Charities and affiliations to proscribed organisations and/or designated individuals

Trustees are custodians of their charities. They are publicly accountable and have a responsibility and duty of care to their charity which will include taking the necessary steps to safeguard their charity and its beneficiaries from harm of all kinds, including from terrorist abuse. Trustees must therefore not engage in conduct or activities which would lead a reasonable member of the public to conclude that the charity or its trustees are associated with a proscribed organisation or terrorism generally.

Links between a charity and terrorist activity corrode public confidence in the integrity of charity. Links include, but are not limited to, fundraising, financial support or provision of facilities and formal or informal links to proscribed organisations. The conduct of, or comments made by, an individual connected to the charity (such as a trustee) in relation to terrorist, or criminal purposes may be taken into account.

Where a charity’s activities may, or appear to support, condone or encourage terrorist activity and terrorist ideology, trustees should take immediate steps to make clear it does not support terrorist or violent activities and views, these are not the charity’s views and that it does not condone or support them. If there is a close association between the activities and a terrorist group, the charity is likely to have to stop those activities.

What steps will be required will depend on the circumstances, but may include some of the following:

• ceasing the activities immediately; for example, withdrawing further copies of literature
• if a speaker or literature content gives the impression that the charity supports or condones terrorist activity or violence, making clear these are not the charity’s views and that it does not condone or support these views
• not using the speaker again
• not promoting literature by that author again
• if the individual speaker or author is a trustee, member of the charity’s staff or agent, considering whether further internal action is required or may be appropriate

If trustees, charity employees or volunteers have information about possible terrorist activity they should telephone the Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321. Charity trustees, employees and volunteers are now under a positive legal duty (section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000) to report their suspicions of terrorist financing offences to the police. If they do not, they may commit a criminal offence. In addition, if a charity is concerned about an immediate threat to life they should contact the police immediately by dialing 999.

Safeguarding

Protecting people and safeguarding responsibilities should be a governance priority for all charities. As part of fulfilling their trustee duties, trustees must take reasonable steps to protect people, who come into contact with their charity, from harm. Protecting people from harm is not an overhead to be minimised, it is a fundamental and integral part of operating as a charity for the public benefit.

We expect charities to:

• make sure all trustees, employees, volunteers and beneficiaries know about safeguarding and people protection
• have appropriate policies and procedures in place
• check that people are suitable to act in their roles
• know to spot and refer or report concerns
• have a clear system of referring or reporting to relevant organisations as soon as you suspect or identify concerns
• set out risks and how you will manage them in a risk register which is regularly reviewed
• be quick to respond to concerns and carry out appropriate investigations
• not let one trustee dominate your work - trustees should work together

If charities work with children or adults at risk there are more legal requirements.

Guidance on safeguarding and protecting people for charities and trustees is available on the Commission’s website.

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.

Charity accounting requirements

Trustees of charities with an income of over £25,000 are under a legal duty as charity trustees to submit annual returns, annual reports and accounting documents to the Commission as the regulator of charities. Even if the charity’s annual income is not greater than £25,000 trustees are under a legal duty to prepare annual accounts and reports and should be able to provide these on request. All charities with an income over £10,000 must submit an annual return.

Failure to submit accounts and accompanying documents to the Commission may be a criminal offence under section 173 of the Act. The Commission also regards this as misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of a charity and is a breach of the trustees’ statutory duties under s162, 163, 164 and 169 of the Act.

1. At the hearing on 15 January 2018, individual A pleaded guilty to four counts of possessing a record of information useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, and one count of disseminating terrorist material. These offences were separate to individual A’s employment at the charity. ↩

2. The full legal definition of regulated activity is set out in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ↩

3. Proscribed terrorist organisations ↩