UPDATE: The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) is set to challenge the Charity Commission’s allegations of “mismanagement” in an urgent judicial review. The Commission concluded that an article published by CAA, which criticized the UK’s suspension of some arms exports to Israel as “obscene,” exceeded its charitable mandate.
The Charity Commission’s findings are significant and have immediate implications for CAA, as they claim the trustees failed to provide adequate documentation regarding the article’s publication. The Commission defines mismanagement as any act that is deemed criminal or improper, a serious charge that could impact the charity’s operations.
CAA vehemently disputes these findings, labeling them “baseless and unacceptable.” CAA argues that their statements align with those from other Jewish charities, including the Board of Deputies, which expressed concerns that the arms suspension sends “a dangerous message.” They assert that their views echo those of the government’s solicitor-general, Sarah Sackman MP, who warned the decision could jeopardize the security of Israel.
This controversy began following a complaint from Cage International, a London-based advocacy group. CAA claims the Commission published its findings on October 12, 2023, one day before CAA was scheduled to submit its responses, a move they argue undermined their right to a fair hearing.
CAA has now received a Regulatory Action Plan, outlining necessary steps to comply with the Commission’s directives. A CAA spokesperson expressed outrage, stating, “The Charity Commission has taken a year to arrive at a decision we consider seriously flawed.” They criticized the Commission for sharing its findings with Cage prior to informing CAA, suggesting that this undermines their credibility and fairness.
The spokesperson continued, “We will challenge the claim of ‘mismanagement’ due to a lack of formal minutes for routine trustee conversations. These discussions occur daily in our fast-paced environment.” They emphasized that their statements reflect those made by other respected entities within the Jewish community, including leaders from prominent charities.
In a statement, the Charity Commission maintained its stance, stating, “We thoroughly examined concerns raised about CAA, including the article in question. Not all content was capable of furthering the charity’s objectives.” The Commission emphasized that the failure to maintain sufficient documentation constitutes mismanagement and has mandated improvements through the Regulatory Action Plan.
The fallout from this case highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding charity governance and the scrutiny faced by organizations addressing politically charged issues. As CAA prepares to file for judicial review, the outcome could set a precedent for how charities navigate political discourse and regulatory compliance.
The situation is developing rapidly, and CAA’s legal challenge could have profound implications for its operations and the broader landscape of charitable organizations in the UK. Observers and stakeholders are urged to monitor this unfolding story closely as it may significantly impact the charity sector and political advocacy.
Stay tuned for further updates on this critical issue.
