A RACIAL justice charity that was founded in Bradford has been censured by the Charity Commission for “conflicts of interest and unbalanced research.”

Just West Yorkshire was founded in 2007, and was wound up late last year, before the findings of a Charity Commission investigation.

Published today, the Commission found that Just West Yorkshire produced reports that “did not appear to properly consider the charity’s purpose or the need for balance, and trustees failed to manage conflicts of interest.”

A former director of the charity said the Commission had “misinterpreted” the findings of one of the charity’s reports, but adds that he “respects” the Commission’s viewpoint.

The charity’s original base was the Carlisle Business Centre in Manningham, but, according to Companies House, it moved to Rotherham in 2016.

The Commission began investigating the charity in early 2018 after complaints about two of their reports.

It says the charity’s trustees closed the organisation “after the regulator issued notice of its intention to issue an Official Warning over the trustees’ actions, but before it was able to complete this.”

Just West Yorkshire produced regular reports and newsletters on racial justice issues, and issued press statements on major national and local issues.

Two of the charity’s reports in particular are criticised in the findings.

One called ‘Rethinking Prevent: a case for an alternative approach’ looked at the controversial Prevent de-radicalisation programme used in schools.

On this report the Commission’s report says it was “not clear how the research was balanced to take into account differing views and opinions.” It adds that the report: “contained quotes from two individuals, both of whom are linked to statements which could be considered to support extreme views.”

The other ‘A Temperature Check report (Understanding and assessing the impact of Rotherham MP, Sarah Champion’s comments in the Sun Newspaper on 10 August 2017)’ referred to the Labour MP’s comments about grooming gangs and ethnicity.

The comments proved controversial, and at the time were heavily criticised by the charity. The group’s subsequent “temperature check” report looked into the aftermath of her comments.

Referring to this report, the Commission says: “The report discusses at length two instances which predate the comments and appear to be unrelated to the objectives of the report. These are two murders, a Rotherham man (10 August 2015) and Jo Cox MP (16 June 2016). Any suggestion of an association between remarks made by the MP and these murders would appear to be entirely without basis given that both incidents occurred before the MP’s remarks were made.”

The commission said press releases issued by the charity regarding the report did not seem to match what was being said in the actual document. It said: “The report states it is ‘nothing more than a temperature check’ and ‘it is very difficult to assess if the impact of 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.’”

On the Prevent report, the Commissioner claims the process behind the document, including how participants were selected, was “not clear.”

It says that despite attempts from the Commissioner, investigators were unable to get information they requested from the report’s authors.

They add: “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.”

The investigation also found that two trustees received “unauthorised payments” from the charity’s funds, with one paid £6,000 to work on the Rethinking Prevent report.

The investigation “found no evidence that the individuals recused themselves from decision-making when their payment was discussed. They also found no evidence that conflicts of interest were managed, and no agreements or contracts were in place.”

Trustees are not meant to receive any benefit from their charity, unless it is properly authorised and is clearly in their charity’s interests.

Other issued raised by the Commission include concerns that trustees failed to submit trustees annual report, annual return and accounts when required and that “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.”

Tim Hopkins, Assistant Director of Investigations and Inquiries at the Charity Commission said: “Charities should be distinct from other types of organisations in their attitude and behaviour, in their motivations and methods. It is unacceptable that the trustees of this charity failed to fully discharge their legal duties in this way, resulting in unmanaged conflicts of interest and private benefit.

“Charity trustees should honour their responsibility and legal duty to act in the best interests of their charity at all times. As shown here, failure to do so can cause irreparable damage to a charity.”

In response to the report, Nadeem Murtuja, listed as a former director of the charity and now Executive Director for Communities and Customer at Oxford City Council, said: “The ‘former trustee’ referred to in receipt of £6,000 was not myself, and nor did I have any official involvement with the charity during the period when that payment was made.

“In April 2017, the new charity trustees recorded a conflict of interest in minutes of a meeting – as noted by the Charity Commission. This was during a period of crisis, it is important to note, that this meeting took place during a period when the Director of the Charity was terminally ill, and died a few months later. At all times I acted in accordance with my obligations as a trustee.

“In relation to the reference in the commissioned report to the climate that resulted in the murders of Jo Cox MP and a local Rotherham man, I fear there has been a misinterpretation of the point the report was seeking to make and that is, unfortunately incendiary comments do incite acts of hate.

“However, I respect the viewpoint of the Charity Commission.”

In response to the findings, Sarah Champion MP said: “The Charity Commissions report clearly demonstrates that Just West Yorkshire were in breach of their charitable objectives in producing this report. Their reports were not evidence based or reliable and they demonstrated political motivations behind their actions. Furthermore, the Charity Commission investigation outlines serious financial inconsistencies and improprieties.

“When Just West Yorkshire released their report into me in February 2017, it felt like a targeted smear campaign – designed to drive a wedge between myself and the community I serve. The Charity Commission report provides a huge relief, vindication and draws a line under a very unpleasant period.

“On 6th September 2019, the Commission issued a notice of intention to issues an Official Warning to the Charity. Regrettably, rather than apologising and making organisational changes, Just West Yorkshire elected to dissolve the Charity on 23rd January 2020.

“As a former Chief Executive of a charity myself, I understand just how important public trust and transparency is. I would therefore like to thank all those at the Charity Commission for their hard work and ensuring that the good faith the public show when they make charitable donations is not abused.”