In early April 2026, the charity City of Sanctuary UK was cleared of wrongdoing by the Charity Commission following the circulation of misinformation about an educational activity conducted in 2025. The claim, backed by several MPs, that school children took part in an activity sending Valentine’s Day cards to adult refugees and asylum seekers, was proven false; the activity was to write supportive messages that were displayed by schools and some charities. No wrongdoing was found but the charity was subject to reputational damage as a result of the spread of misinformation. There are some premodern parallels to be drawn here, particularly when it comes to the protection of public reputation.
In a London parish in 1494, Cecily Clerk sued William Huntingfeld for defamation, after Huntinfeld spread a ‘great rumour’ amongst Clerk’s neighbours and their broader community accusing Clerk of sexual misconduct. The case was heard before the London Consistory Court, with each witness claiming that ‘public voice and fame’ circulated about Clerk in the parish and surrounding areas as a result of Huntingfeld’s actions. This is procedural language common in defamation cases, as proof of rumour was a legal requirement for the plaintiff bringing the case. It was therefore common for witnesses speaking on behalf of the plaintiff to claim that they trusted the plaintiff less as a result of the rumour spread about them. This case goes into more detail than is usual in accounts of cases before the Court, with witness William Brownyng listing specific individuals who ‘used to hold [Cecily Clerk] in great familiarity before those words were spoken against her’ who since ‘avoided her company and still avoid it’. Clerk was summoned to the Commissary Court on an adultery charge and made to undergo compurgation, the act of purging oneself of charges against them in the presence of several community members who were considered trustworthy. The defamation case was another method by which she attempted to reestablish her good reputation.
Of the four testimonies, one is particularly revealing of the potential motive behind Huntingfeld’s words. William Rubton’s statement tells us that Huntingfeld spread the rumour ‘at the time of the discussion about electing the jury’ for the local ward-level court. Rubton suggests that a dispute between Cecily Clerk’s husband, John, and Huntingfeld over this election of officials, sparked Huntingfeld’s accusations about Cecily Clerk’s alleged misconduct.
As is often the case with premodern disputes, no outcome survives, although the evidence suggests that Clerk had a strong case. Regardless of the outcome, the testimonies tell us a great deal about the long and complex history of reputation, trust and misinformation. The City of Sanctury case also shows the importance of public trust and defending reputation from misinformation. In the aftermath of the case, a spokesperson for the charity stated that ‘we will continue to work with focus and confidence’ despite the ‘real impact’ of the spread of misinformation on the charity and those they work with.
Recourse to a supervisory body to counter reputational damage is a common feature of today’s society just as it was for the plaintiffs coming before the various late medieval courts, who sought to restore their reputation and the trust placed in them by members of the community. These mechanisms aimed at protecting the legitimacy of individuals and institutions go some way to supporting those in reputational crisis. But once public trust has been damaged it can be difficult to repair. The accusations against Clerk seem to have had just as little truth to them as those against City of Sanctuary UK. Our examples also appear to share the underlying theme of ulterior motive. Many of those behind the misinformation spreading online were hostile to asylum seekers. Gavin Williamson, the MP who reported City of Sanctury to the Charity Commissioner, claimed that the charity was ‘encouraging kids to send Valentine’s Day cards to illegal immigrants’ and argued that they were ‘highly politicised’.
The ability of a society to adjudicate clearly between truth and untruth is vital to the maintenance of trust in its institutions. Studies conducted by the Charity Commission suggest that public trust is currently low in most institutions, but high in charities. Broader trust in a sector, however, does not mean that there is no concern from the spread of misinformation, and lower levels of trust in charities in the previous decade demonstrate that trust does not remain reliably constant even in relatively short spans of time. A central factor here is misinformation, which can create a crisis of reputation before a regulator can intervene. In Clerk’s case, the testimonies tell us that the witnesses testified less than a week after the most recent of Huntingfeld’s allegedly defamatory statements were uttered. This is one of the shorter periods between incident and court case of any of the London Consistory records from the time, perhaps stemming from the threat of what the rumour could do to the functioning of local politics. Nevertheless, the testimonies paint a bleak picture of reputational damage, seemingly created in a relatively short time.
If public trust is shaped before factchecking can take place, being transparent and accountable is not enough for charities, or indeed other organisations and institutions. Transparency and truth are crucial to the ethical running of a charitable institution, but as the long history of reputation, trust and misinformation demonstrates, especially where pre-existing stereotypes are concerned, public trust often stems from immediate reactions which can have long lasting reputational consequences. When individuals feel that the most effective method of undermining the actions of those they disagree with is to cause unfounded reputational damage, quicker methods of defence against misinformation, such as rapid-response external review, are required to prevent lasting harm.
