From the ruling:
"We note that the Congregation and the Charity are one and the same entity in this case, so that whilst the Congregation understandably wishes to follow its religious practices, its status as a registered charity brings with it, in exchange for public recognition and tax reliefs, a requirement to maintain certain standards of behaviour. It also brings with it the risk that, if there are concerns about its activities, these might be inquired into by the Respondent. We consider that there were significant grounds for concern about the Charity on the basis of the information held by the Respondent"
“we consider that there are significant on-going grounds for concern about the Charity’s conduct of safeguarding matters. We take into account (i) the Charity’s failure to be entirely frank with the Respondent about the questioning of victims in the disfellowshipping of Mr Rose at the relevant time; (ii) the delay in volunteering the information that third parties had been involved in the disfellowshipping of Mr Rose; and (iii) the Charity’s insistence in these proceedings that there was no legitimate cause for concern by the Respondent about the conduct of those proceedings because of the appointment of third parties to conduct them. The Charity did not appear from the evidence before us to accept that best practice in safeguarding for charities relates not only to the protection of children but also of vulnerable adults, nor did it appear to have considered whether the Charity might have a safeguarding role in respect of adults who had been abused as children in the Congregation. 72. The Charity also did not seem to us to have considered whether Mr Rose might yet present a risk to children currently in the Congregation.”
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Tayo-etc-decision-09Apr15.pdf