This is a public statement by Rabbi Dr Moshe Freedman regarding his departure from the rabbinate.
Introduction
This statement is published in the interests of transparency, accountability, and personal integrity. It sets out Rabbi Dr Moshe Freedman’s account of the events leading to his dismissal from the United Synagogue, the subsequent Employment Tribunal proceedings, confirmed data protection breaches, and ongoing concerns he has raised through appropriate regulatory channels.
Rabbi Freedman recognises the seriousness of safeguarding responsibilities and the importance of proper legal and disciplinary processes. He has cooperated fully with all investigations and continues to pursue clarity and accountability through lawful means.
Background
Rabbi Dr Moshe Freedman served as the community rabbi of New West End Synagogue from 2015 until his dismissal in January 2023. During his tenure, he was deeply committed to serving his community and fulfilling his pastoral responsibilities, and had an unblemished disciplinary record.
In May 2022, an allegation was made relating to physical contact between Rabbi Freedman and a complainant who must remain anonymous for legal reasons. The matter was reported to the police, and Rabbi Freedman was arrested and interviewed. Rabbi Freedman fully cooperated with the police investigation and provided a full and candid account of events to police.
Following a full investigation, the police took no further action, and no criminal charges were brought. In addition, the Disclosure and Barring Service also reviewed the evidence and determined that no action was necessary to bar him from working with children or vulnerable adults.
Following the incident, Rabbi Freedman underwent clinical evaluation and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Consultant clinical psychologist Dr Alison Conning, a highly respected expert witness who independently reviewed the evidence and assessed Rabbi Freedman, concluded:
“Given the exceptional and specific circumstances of the incident, it is highly likely that his previously undiagnosed autism played a critical role in affecting his judgement, and that his actions have an entirely plausible and innocent explanation.”
Rabbi Freedman deeply regrets the distress caused by the incident. He has consistently maintained that there was never any malicious or predatory intent. The United Synagogue also accepted that his actions were not motivated by any predatory sexual intent.
His wife, who had long observed autistic traits in his behaviour prior to his diagnosis, later reflected that although the diagnosis came as a shock, it helped explain behaviours that had previously been misunderstood. She had noticed traits associated with autism and encouraged him to seek assessment, which ultimately led to his diagnosis. This diagnosis provided important clinical context which Rabbi Freedman believes should have been fully considered in subsequent proceedings. Indeed, in the aftermath of the judgement, Dr Conning confirmed that she had thoroughly reviewed the evidence and stood by her conclusions.
Dismissal by the United Synagogue
Despite the absence of criminal charges and the existence of expert clinical evidence, the United Synagogue dismissed Rabbi Freedman in January 2023 following internal disciplinary proceedings.
This decision had devastating personal and professional consequences. A close family member of the complainant later stated:
“While I recognise that his actions were inappropriate, I am satisfied that his intentions were neither predatory nor sexually motivated… His behaviour, though ill-judged, stemmed from a place of care and concern rather than malice.”
The same individual also expressed concern regarding the United Synagogue’s handling of the matter, stating:
“Their [the United Synagogue’s] handling of the situation has, in my opinion, been disproportionate and inconsistent with my clearly expressed wishes.”
Rabbi Freedman believes that insufficient weight was given to expert medical evidence and to the broader context of the incident, at any stage of the prpocess. In his witness statement he claimed that the he had been found “…guilty until proven guilty” and that the verdict to dismiss him had been “…a decision looking for evidence, rather than evidence informing a decision.”
Employment Tribunal Proceedings
Rabbi Freedman brought claims against the United Synagogue for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and disability discrimination. The Employment Tribunal ultimately dismissed those claims and found that the United Synagogue had acted lawfully in dismissing him.
Rabbi Freedman respectfully but vehemently disagrees with significant aspects of the tribunal’s findings which extend well beyond disagreement with the outcome itself and relate to procedural and factual matters arising during the tribunal.
Last-Minute Change of Judge and Judicial Transparency Concerns
On the morning the tribunal was due to begin, Rabbi Freedman and his legal team were informed approximately thirty minutes before proceedings commenced that the judge originally listed to hear the case had been replaced. The case was instead heard by Employment Judge Sarah Keogh.
This unexpected change caused delay and uncertainty, and Rabbi Freedman’s barrister indicated at the time that such a last-minute change was unusual. No clear explanation was provided for why the judge originally listed was replaced.
It was only after the tribunal concluded and the draft judgement had been sent to the parties, that Rabbi Freedman became aware of apparent institutional and professional connections between Judge Sarah Keogh and Judy Stone KC, the barrister representing the United Synagogue. Freedman commented:
“Given the severity of the judgement against me, the language used, and the textbook examples of confirmation bias, I became concerned that the change in judge had more significance than I had originally thought.”
Brief internet searches unearthed the fact that both Stone and Keogh had attended the same Oxford college during the same period, both matriculating in 1995, and that both had professional associations with chambers connected to King’s Bench Walk.
Rabbi Freedman does not assert that such connections, in themselves, establish wrongdoing. He acknowledges that:
“The evidence I have uncovered is circumstantial and so I cannot say with any certainty that there has been any kind of interference, corruption, or any other such unlawful behavior; the change in judge and the apparent connections between her and the Respondent’s legal council could all be coincidental. Nevertheless, I also cannot say with certainty that there hasn’t. Had I been aware of these matters at the time, given the change in presiding judge, I would have asked my legal counsel to seek clarification regarding whether any disclosure or recusal was necessary.”
Fundamentally, Freedman believes that transparency in such matters is essential to maintaining confidence in judicial processes.
Concerns Regarding Evidence Accepted by the Tribunal
Rabbi Freedman is particularly concerned by the tribunal’s acceptance of certain claims made by one of the witnesses for the United Synagogue which he believes to be false.
One such assertion was made by the Head of HR at the United Synagogue, Mrs. Victoria Wiltshire. She stated that:
“They [the police] also told us at the meeting that the option of a caution was considered by the police but that it was decided that it was not a viable option at that time due to the fact that when the police notified Rabbi Freedman about the possibility of a caution, he had said that he would commit suicide if that were to happen and for that reason, the police decided not to proceed with a caution.”
Rabbi Freedman categorically denies that this occurred. Firstly, at no point did the police notify him of a caution; he found out that they had considered this from a third-party. Secondly, the claim that someone facing police action might be excused from it on the basis of making such a threat of self harm or suicide is pure fiction.
On the contrary, other well-documented cases involving the Metropolitan Police, such as that of Caroline Flack, police investigations have proceeded irrespective of emotional distress expressed by the individual concerned. Rabbi Freedman believes that the tribunal’s acceptance of this claim raises serious questions regarding their credibility.
Confirmed Data Protection Breaches
Following his dismissal Rabbi Freedman filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the handling of his personal data during the disciplinary process. He had shared a classified document containing special category data which he had explicitly asked to remain confidential. Nevertheless, aspects of his personal life from that document were intentionally leaked and included in other documents which were more widely disseminated.
The Information Commissioner’s Office investigated and concluded that the United Synagogue had acted unlawfully and breached UK GDPR, including Article 5(1)(a), relating to the lawful and fair processing of personal data. This finding against the United Synagogue confirmed that personal data had been handled improperly. Their letter from November 2023 stated that:
“…it is our view that United Synagogue has not complied with their data protection obligations. … [i]t is … our view that the organisation is non compliant with the UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a) which states, personal data shall be: “processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’).”
Concerns regarding Charitable Governance and the Use of Charitable Funds
Rabbi Freedman has raised concerns regarding governance and transparency within the United Synagogue. These concerns include the engagement of solicitor Ilana Swimer to represent the United Synagogue in proceedings at a reported cost to the charity of a six-figure sum, on top of the fees paid to their barrister, Judy Stone KC, which were also a six-figure sum. Rabbi Freedman commented that:
“I was shocked that the United Synagogue had spent so much money on legal fees, which presumably came from charitable funds. I had expected them to use their professional indemnity insurance to cover their legals costs given the fact that this was not the first time they have had to defend themselves in an employment tribunal. The Charity Commission strongly recommends that charities – especially with a large number of employees, have such insurance. Surely, if they had such insurance, why didn’t they use it? But if they did not have insurance, this must represent a catastrophic oversight and failure of good charitable governence.”
Rabbi Freedman understands that Ilana Swimer is the sister-in-law of Michael Goldstein, who served as President of the United Synagogue during the relevant period and had a significant role in the operational aspects of the United Synagogue’s response to the allegations made against Rabbi Freedman. Rabbi Freedman does not assert that this relationship, in itself, establishes wrongdoing. However, he believes that transparency regarding such matters is important in maintaining public confidence in charitable governance.
Closing Statement
Rabbi Freedman recognises the seriousness of safeguarding responsibilities and supports their importance. However, he believes that his case raises important questions regarding fairness, transparency, and accountability. He believes that the public – and especially United Synagogue members, have the right to know, and so has chosen to publish this statement not out of hostility, but out of a sincere commitment to truth and transparency.
For any enquiries regarding these matters, please contact office@mahshetashiv.com.