Naomi Campbell wins appeal against five-year charity trustee ban
A tribunal ruled that the most serious misconduct at Fashion for Relief was concealed from Naomi Campbell by a fellow trustee.
World Affairs Editor ·

Why it's trending
Naomi Campbell has won her appeal against a five-year ban on serving as a charity trustee after a tribunal concluded that she had been unaware of the most serious misconduct at Fashion for Relief. BBC News reported that a three-person First-Tier Tribunal panel found the relevant conduct had been concealed from the model by fellow trustee Bianka Hellmich.
Campbell had been disqualified from acting as a charity trustee for five years in 2024 after a Charity Commission inquiry into Fashion for Relief. BBC News said the watchdog had found "serious mismanagement and/or misconduct" at the organisation, including concerns about money raised by the charity and expenditure on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
Key facts from the tribunal ruling
- BBC News reported that Campbell won her appeal against the five-year trustee ban imposed in 2024.
- The First-Tier Tribunal found that the most serious misconduct was concealed from Campbell by fellow trustee Bianka Hellmich, according to BBC News.
- The panel said Campbell was not responsible for inappropriate use of the charity's resources or unjustified expenditure, BBC News reported.
- BBC News said the tribunal accepted Campbell bore some responsibility for failures involving minutes and the timely filing of accounts, but found those failings insufficient to justify disqualification.
- The Charity Commission said it would reflect on the court's decision and consider wider implications for its work, according to BBC News.
What the tribunal found about Campbell
The panel's conclusions directly addressed Campbell's claim that she had been deceived. BBC News reported that the tribunal said documentary evidence corroborated her account. "For the avoidance of doubt, we accept that both Ms Campbell's evidence, as well as her conduct during the operation of the Charity, was entirely honest," the panel said.
The ruling also stated that Campbell "was not involved in, and did not know of" the most serious misconduct. According to BBC News, the panel concluded she was not responsible for the inappropriate use of Fashion for Relief's resources or unjustified spending and had not contributed to or facilitated it.
BBC News said the tribunal nevertheless found that Campbell should accept some responsibility for administrative failures, including maintaining minutes and filing accounts on time. The panel decided those shortcomings were not sufficient to disqualify her from being a charity trustee.
The expenditure and misconduct examined
| Issue | Tribunal or inquiry finding reported by BBC News |
|---|---|
| Hotel charges | Campbell did not know €4,386, or £3,750, from a 2018 south of France trip had been paid from charity expenses |
| Room-service dinner | €1,298, or £1,100, formed part of those charges |
| Spa treatments | €1,163, or £990, was charged |
| Cigarettes | €112, or £95, was charged |
| Payments to Hellmich | The Charity Commission inquiry found more than £290,000 in unauthorised payments for apparent consultancy fees |
BBC News reported that the tribunal specifically found Campbell did not know the €4,386 in hotel charges from the 2018 trip had been taken from Fashion for Relief's expenses. Those costs included €1,298 for dinner room service, €1,163 for spa treatments and €112 for cigarettes.
The ruling maintained that there had been "serious misconduct and mismanagement" in the administration of Fashion for Relief. However, BBC News said the tribunal attributed its most serious aspects, including unauthorised payments to Hellmich, failures in financial management and misuse of charity funds, to Hellmich's conduct and found that those matters were concealed from Campbell.
The Charity Commission's earlier inquiry found that unauthorised payments of more than £290,000 had been made to Hellmich as apparent consultancy fees, BBC News reported. Fashion for Relief closed in 2023, before Campbell and two other trustees were banned the following year.
Campbell's case and the tribunal's findings on deception
Campbell established Fashion for Relief in 2005 to help victims of Hurricane Katrina and later fronted campaigns connected with disasters and causes around the world, according to BBC News. In challenging the ban, she argued that Hellmich had forged her signature and impersonated her through a false email address to redirect money intended for the charity.
Campbell told the tribunal in June that her "only mistake" had been trusting Hellmich, BBC News reported. The Charity Commission opposed her appeal and argued that the five-year disqualification should remain in place.
The tribunal ultimately found that Hellmich had deceived Campbell, used forged documents and a false email address purporting to belong to her, and also deceived professional advisers and the Charity Commission, according to BBC News. The ruling said Campbell had "no reasonable basis to suspect Ms Hellmich's dishonesty" before regulatory concerns emerged and that she took reasonable steps once they did.
Hellmich had disputed Campbell's allegations. BBC News reported that she told the Financial Times in April 2025 that it was "deeply distressing" to face what she called false accusations, arguing that Campbell's claims sought to portray herself as a victim while scapegoating a friend. Hellmich also said she had co-operated fully with the Charity Commission for six years.
Reaction after Campbell's successful appeal
Following the judgment, Campbell thanked the tribunal and its judges for hearing her case and examining the evidence. BBC News quoted her saying that charitable work had long been important to her and that having this questioned "hurt deeply". She said the ruling meant she could return to serving people and communities she had sought to support.
The Charity Commission said it had made its original disqualification order on the evidence available at the time. According to BBC News, the watchdog acknowledged that Campbell, the Commission itself and the law firm concerned had been subjected to sophisticated deception by another trustee.
The Commission said the matter was referred to the Metropolitan Police once it became aware of that deception. BBC News reported that the regulator would reflect on the tribunal's decision and consider any broader implications for its work.
The watchdog also pointed to the financial consequences of its intervention in Fashion for Relief. BBC News said the Commission's action ensured that other charities, including Save the Children, received almost £250,000 that was owed to them.
The tribunal's decision therefore leaves intact its finding that serious failures occurred at Fashion for Relief while reversing the conclusion that Campbell's own conduct justified a five-year trustee ban. BBC News reported that the panel distinguished between the administrative shortcomings for which Campbell bore some responsibility and the more serious financial misconduct it found had been hidden from her.
Frequently asked questions
Why was Naomi Campbell banned from being a charity trustee?
BBC News reported that Campbell was banned for five years in 2024 following a Charity Commission inquiry into serious mismanagement and misconduct at Fashion for Relief. The inquiry included findings about charity money being used for luxury hotel and spa costs.
Why did Naomi Campbell win her appeal?
BBC News said the First-Tier Tribunal accepted documentary evidence showing that the most serious misconduct had been concealed from Campbell. The panel found that her evidence and her conduct while the charity operated were honest.
What did the tribunal say about Bianka Hellmich?
BBC News reported that the tribunal found Hellmich deceived Campbell, used forged documents and used a false email address purporting to belong to her. It also found that professional advisers and the Charity Commission had been deceived.
Did the tribunal find any failures by Naomi Campbell?
BBC News said the panel found Campbell had some responsibility for failures to maintain minutes and file accounts on time. It concluded those administrative failings were not serious enough to warrant disqualification as a charity trustee.
Sources: reporting by BBC News.
Filed under Entertainment · Written by Eleanor Whitfield



