Decision

Charity case report: Just West Yorkshire

Updated 7 December 2020

This decision was withdrawn on 23 June 2022

This report has been archived as it is over 2 years old.

Applies to England and Wales

The charity, a charitable company was registered with the Commission on 4 October 2007 and incorporated and registered with Companies House on 20 April 2007. On 19 November 2019 the charity was dissolved at Companies House. As the charity ceased to exist it was removed from the Register of Charities (“the Register”) on 23 January 2020.

The charity’s objects were “(1) to promote good race relations (2) to eliminate discrimination of the grounds of race, (3) to promote equality of opportunity between different racial groups”. Its activities included publishing academic reports, conducting research and holding events.

The Commission opened a compliance visits and inspections (“CV&I”) case into the charity in January 2018 following a complaint about a report entitled ‘Rethinking Prevent: a case for an alternative approach’ (“rethinking prevent report”). The complainant considered the report was not independent and promoted extremist viewpoints.

Prior to meeting with the trustees, further complaints were received related to another report published by the charity called, ‘A Temperature Check report (Understanding and assessing the impact of Rotherham MP, Sarah Champion’s comments in the Sun Newspaper on 10 August 2017’ (“temperature check report”). The Commission considered both reports as part of its case. The Commission also considered the governance, management and administration of the charity.

Findings

The commission concluded that there was misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. Those who served as trustees at the time of dissolution and prior, failed to demonstrate an understanding of their duties in relation to conflicts of interest and failed to act in accordance with the charity’s governing document in respect of conflicts of interest.

The trustees failed to show how they were making decisions in the best interests of the charity and there has been a repeated pattern of behaviour over a period of time. This resulted in unauthorised remuneration and/or private benefit to conflicted parties, including former trustees of the charity and individuals connected to them.

How research reports were produced by the charity

The Commission considered if the rethinking prevent report and temperature check report (together ‘the reports’) advanced education, in furtherance of the charity’s objects and in accordance with charity law. The academic practices followed (including the number of participants and how they were selected/approached), and the conclusions drawn were key considerations.

It was not clear from the information provided to the Commission that the trustees, at the respective times, had considered the charity’s objects when making decisions in respect of the scope and subject of the reports.

The Commission found that the publication of the reports would likely provide information to promote and inform debate on issues central to the objects of the charity, however the publication of academic papers is not a charitable objective.

Rethinking prevent report

The Commission found that the academic process followed by the trustees/those tasked with undertaking research and writing the rethinking prevent report was not clear. In particular:

• it was not clear to the Commission how participants (non-stakeholders) were identified and selected to take part in the research, including structured interviews. When questioned about this, in the meeting on 10 July 2018, the then trustees said the authors of the rethinking prevent report had used recognised academic methods to identify participants, without providing any further detail. When contacted, the authors of the rethinking prevent report did not provide this information to the Commission
• it was not clear if a list of potential stakeholders created, by an employee of the charity, including political figures, law enforcement officers and journalists was considered by the authors
• it was not clear how the research was balanced to take into account differing views and opinions
• it was not established how members of the public (non-stakeholders) were identified and invited to participate in the research by the authors
• it was not clear how the rethinking prevent report could make such definitive conclusions on the basis of 36 structured interviews/participants

The rethinking prevent report contained quotes from two individuals, both of whom are linked to statements which could be considered to support extreme views. An employee of the charity stated to the Commission, on 10 July 2018, that with the benefit of hindsight these individuals should not have been asked to contribute as their association detracted from the important messages of the rethinking prevent report. It is not clear who invited these individuals (authors or trustees) to contribute their views to this report, but in any event, no information has been submitted to the Commission to show a consideration of the risks arising from their involvement by the trustees.

The Commission sought information from the trustees and the authors of the rethinking prevent report. The trustees told the Commission that the majority of the information sought was held with the authors and not the trustees. The trustees also stated that the authors would not provide this information to the trustees for onward transmission to the Commission; and that the Commission would have to seek the information directly from the authors.

The Commission sought information from the authors of the report by way of Order under section 52 of the Act, on 1 March 2019. The decision to issue the Order was challenged by the authors and a Decision Review initiated. The authors sought additional time to make their full representations owing to personal commitments.

The Commission agreed to a considerable extension.

Representations were received from the authors on 28 June 2019. The Decision Review upheld the decision to issue the Order under Section 52 of the Charities Act 2011 (“the Act”) and this was communicated to the authors on 23 August 2019. The Commission decided to revoke its section 52 Order on 3 September 2019, owing to the significant period of time that had passed since issuing the Order and a change in case strategy.

The Commission was unable to obtain information from the authors of the report. This is concerning as the charity received a grant to produce the report, expended charitable funds on its research, analysis and production and published it in the charity’s name, as such it was considered charitable property. The trustees should have had, or been able to obtain, access to it.

A temperature check report

The Commission did not find any evidence that the trustees, at the time the temperature check report was commissioned, considered the objects of the charity, how the report furthered them, or if the report was in the best interests of the charity.

The former trustees stated a group of community members, activists and organisations had requested development and design of the report. The Commission was unable to verify how the survey was promoted or the extent and scope of the promotion of the survey. The Commission has not been able to determine if a broad range of opinions and balanced views were obtained or if the report was sufficiently open and transparent in respect of its purposes, commissioning and participant invitation.

The Commission also found that the charity’s press release publicising the temperature check report sought to make conclusions which the report itself it distances from. The report states it is ‘nothing more than a temperature check’ and ‘it is very difficult to assess if the impact of Ms Sarah Champion’s comments has directly resulted in an increase in racism, islamophobia or community tensions’. Yet the charity’s press release did make such conclusions, such as ‘An overwhelming theme was the increase in verbal and physical racist abuse’

The Commission found that the MP was not given a right to reply to the report and was only aware of its existence two weeks prior to publication, when they were invited to the public launch event. It is difficult to see how the trustees arrived at the decision not to offer any right of reply, as would be expected, particularly given the charity’s hope to build bridges in the community.

Failure to identify and manage conflicts of interest

The Commission had regulatory concerns in relation to unmanaged conflicts of interest arising from the relationships between the then trustees of the charity and individuals involved with the research and subsequent rethinking prevent report.

A former trustee of the charity (from 4 October 2007 until their resignation on 1 October 2015) was instructed to undertake research for the rethinking prevent report, as a paid contractor. During a meeting with the Commission on 10 July 2018 the then trustees present acknowledged that the conflict of interest that had arisen was not properly managed in accordance with the charity’s governing document or guidance available from the Commission. As a result, this former trustee was paid £6,000 for the work carried out in the rethinking prevent report before 1 October 2015. The Commission also found the payment was unauthorised and that the then trustee received a private benefit as there was no ‘service level contract’ with the charity and it appears the legal requirements to authorise the payment were not met.

The Commission reviewed minutes of a trustee meeting dated 20 April 2017. In those minutes a then trustee put forward an individual as the ‘project lead’ for the rethinking prevent report. A conflict of interest and/or loyalty was identified by the then trustees and noted in the minutes of that meeting.

The Commission found, that aside from acknowledging the conflict of interest and/or loyalty in the meeting minutes there was no further discussion about the selection process, if other individuals would be or had been considered and how this conflict would be managed with consideration of the governing document and the Act.

After the individual was appointed to undertake the work it was not clear if the conflict of interest was recorded or managed during the course of the relationship with the charity and if decisions were being made in the best interests of the charity.

Two individuals were commissioned to undertake the research and write the rethinking prevent report. One of these individuals was also a trustee of the charity at that time and was paid to undertake research and write the rethinking prevent report. The Commission found no evidence that the trustee put themselves forward to conduct the research or write the rethinking prevent report. However, it is also not clear that they recused themselves from the meeting when their payments were discussed. The trustees were unable to show that they had complied with the charity’s governing document or legal requirements to manage the conflict of interest or to properly authorise remuneration of a serving trustee.

Failure of the trustee to submit trustees annual report, annual return and accounts

The trustees failed to submit trustees annual report, annual return and accounts (“annual accounting documents”) to the Commission within 10 months of the financial year end, 30 September 2018, which is a statutory obligation and was also required by the charity’s governing document. The charity’s annual accounting documents were filed 24 days late for the financial year ending 30 September 2017.

Failure to submit annual accounting information within 10 months of the financial year end is a breach of the governing document, breach of statutory obligations and a breach of the trustees legal duties, which are considered misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the Charity.

Political activity and social media

Charities must ensure they are independent and ensure that any involvement with political parties are balanced. A charity must not give support or funding to a political party, candidate or politician.

Further information can be found in the Commission’s guidance, Campaigning and political activity guidance for charities (CC9)

The Commission found the charity’s political neutrality was called into question by the retweeting of political messages and posts from prominent political figures from one political party (May 2019 and posts before, during and after the 2019 general election). The Commission found and concluded that there were insufficient controls around the use of social media, in particular Twitter, as one individual had access to the charity’s Twitter account and had mistakenly made the retweet from the charity’s account and not their personal account.

Delays in the case

The Commission aims to conclude cases in a timely manner. Throughout the case the Commission was asked to provide additional time for the trustees and other parties to provide information and responses to questions. All but one decision, made by the Commission to use its powers, during the case was challenged through the decision review procedure.

The Commission, with due regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, granted deadline extensions that were more than reasonable in the circumstances. The frequent and lengthy deadline extensions and decision reviews severely delayed the Commission findings and conclusion and bringing the case to a close.

Regulatory activity

On 6 September 2019 the Commission issued a notice of intention to issue an Official Warning to the charity under section 75A of the Act, because it was considered that the regulatory issues identified amounted to misconduct and/or mismanagement and/or breach of trust and/or duty. The former trustees submitted representations on 25 October 2019, which were being considered in accordance with the Commission’s Decision Review procedure. However, on 19 November 2019 the charity was dissolved at Companies House and ceased to exist as a charity, as such the Official Warning could not be issued.

However, the decision reviewer made a determination, based on the available material (including the trustees’ written representations), that the decision to issue an Official Warning was the correct one and the grounds under section 75A(1)(b) of the Act were met. If the charity had not dissolved the conclusion of the decision review was to issue the Official Warning to the charity.

On 23 January 2020 the charity was removed from the Register as it ceased to exist.