No legal precedent, that correct.
HOWEVER since English law is generally based on reasonableness and charities have certain legal obligations under their remit and the Equality Act (within exemptions exist) is all about preventing harms, then actually it's a useful thing to build a case.
The RCS report firmly states that there are duties of care to service users, who should be central. It identify numerous areas where ERCC and Wadhwa acted not in the interests of the public in line with it's charitable aims but for their own personal political agendas.
Noting here that one of the obligations of charities is to
1. Make sure your charity’s carrying out its purposes for the public benefit
You and your co-trustees must make sure the charity is carrying out the purposes for which it is set up, and no other purpose.
If you are actively causing a harm to the group you are supposed to be helping because you want to further an agenda which isn't it central aim, you potentially have an issue. Because duty of care and all that.
Charities are required to uphold the law and they are required to uphold certain standards by the Charity Commission.
I note the following:
Strategy for dealing with safeguarding vulnerable
groups including children issues in charities
This strategy document describes the Charity Commission’s role and approach in dealing with safeguarding
issues in relation to charities.
It explains how the commission:
• works with the sector and other agencies to prevent safeguarding concerns arising in the first place
• responds to allegations or reports of abuse of children and vulnerable adults within a charity
• deals with concerns about someone who is currently acting as a charity trustee, employee, volunteer
or contractor and their suitability to hold that position
And
What does the commission mean by ‘vulnerable’ and ‘safeguarding’?
A significant number of charities come into contact, work with or provide activities for vulnerable
beneficiaries. For the purpose of this document, by ‘vulnerable’ the commission is referring to children and
^young people under 18 years of age or to adults who are in receipt of a regulated activity
^
.
The commission defines safeguarding and promoting the welfare of vulnerable groups and children as:
• protecting from maltreatment
• preventing impairment of health or development
• for children - ensuring children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe
and effective care
Protection is a part of safeguarding and promoting welfare. It refers to the activity that is undertaken
to protect specific groups or children who are suffering, or are likely to suffer, significant harm. Effective
protection is essential as part of wider work to safeguard and promote the welfare of vulnerable groups and children. However, all charities should aim to proactively safeguard and promote the welfare of their beneficiaries so that the need for action to protect them from harm is reduced.
I would very much suggest that a charity offering counselling services of any kind for any reason is dealing with vulnerable people and therefore has a duty of care to them. They certainly should not be acting in a way that causes harm.
The RCS report adds legitimacy to the claim that refusal to provide access to single sex services as a default (never mind upon request) is harmful and is not upholding legal requirements over duty of care with vulnerable persons.
Keep in mind that a specific request for single sex services is not denying services to others. Especially when you are offering specific services for males only and transpeople only.
This report has to be seen through the lens of legitimising the claim of harm having been done, which therefore strengthens arguments about discrimination and not acting within the law because it's not looking after and protecting a vulnerable person as required by the charity commission.
It's certainly not going to harm Sarah's case and it definitely isn't going to help the Brighton charity.
Councils can find whoever they like: but funding a charity which has not got proper oversight and isn't protecting vulnerable individuals in line with charities legal obligations is kinda problematic because councils have requirements over due diligence and oversight that there is proper accountability over spending funds.
Saying this report doesn't matter and is irrelevant is wrong.
It is effectively setting out a bunch of reasonable expectations for women that are difficult for someone else in the sector to then argue against.