The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status by an organisation set up to relieve poverty by providing a hardship fund. The fund would be open to people who had invested in split capital investment companies which had collapsed in late 2001 as well as their relatives or someone who co-habited with them. The Commissioners considered the meaning of poverty and financial hardship in charity law. They concluded that the Foundation’s activities did relieve poverty or hardship. Further, they were satisfied that the purpose of the Foundation was not to compensate for the consequences of a bad investment, which would not be charitable, rather than relieve poverty.
The Commissioners noted that the beneficial class was small but concluded in view of the purpose of the Foundation, its potential beneficiaries were a sufficient section of the public. In addition, they concluded although there was a connection between the beneficiaries through investment in a particular type of financial services product, as the Foundation was concerned with the relief of poverty, it would not prevent it from being established for the benefit of the public.
On May 4 2007, the Charity Commission made an Order giving its consent to a lease of Alexandra Park and Palace to Firoka (Alexandra Palace) Limited for 125 years.
The Charity Commission publicised their intention to make this Order and invited representations. 328 representations were received, which covered amongst other things the future use of the Old Station Building by CUFOS (Community Use for the Old Station - a community centre charity which uses part of the Palace), the prospect for including a television broadcasting museum, the future of the Willis organ and theatre at the Palace and the Commission’s power to make the lease.
In response to the public consultation, the Charity Commission has secured the agreement of the trustee to grant the charity called CUFOS protection of its existing lease of the old station building under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Charity Commission’s Order also makes directions to the trustee to ensure it complies with its obligation to consult the Alexandra Park and Palace Advisory Committee.
Due to the high profile nature of the charity and the number of representations received, it was decided that two members of the board of the Charity Commission would make the decision as to whether the lease could go ahead. The representations were considered in detail by the Commissioners. On 27 April 2007 having considered the representations and reviewed the basis for authorising the lease, the Commissioners determined that the lease should be authorised.
Review of a decision to make a scheme. The Commissioners considered whether the order making the scheme was made by mistake or on misrepresentation or otherwise than in conformity with the Charities Act 1993 (“the Act”) and so could be discharged under s89(3) of the Act. The Commissioners considered that:-
(a) the public notice given to the draft scheme was adequate for the purposes of s20 of the Act;
(b) the Commission considered adequately the representations made against the scheme. In this regard it was noted that there was no statutory requirement that representations against a draft scheme must be considered by someone who had no previous involvement with a case;
(c) in establishing the scheme the Commission did exercise its powers and discretions properly under s16 of the Act; and
(d) there were no grounds in the complaint that the Commission raised and encouraged an expectation that a particular course of action would be followed which it subsequently and unjustifiably broke.
The Commissioners concluded in the circumstances that the complainants had not established any grounds for discharging the scheme.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by an organisation with objects to promote general charitable purposes by (1) the provision of beneficial loans and guarantees to charities and for charitable projects and by obtaining loans and taking deposits from the public and (2) promoting the efficiency and effective application of charitable resources by charities and for charitable purposes by the provision of financial advice and assistance and (3) advancing other charitable purposes. The Commissioners considered the purposes and activities of Charity Bank were charitable in law being analogous to promoting any charitable purpose for the benefit of the public by promoting pay roll giving. They also concluded that public benefit was established.
Due to the nature of its activities, Charity Bank would be subject to regulation by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”). The Commissioners concluded that the relevant banking regulation which was administered by the FSA did not oust the charitable jurisdiction of the court and the Commission.
Charity Bank was a company limited by shares. The Commissioners concluded that the structure of a company limited by shares in the manner proposed did not compromise its charitable status.
They also considered the nature of Charity Bank’s relationship with the Charities Aid Foundation (“CAF”), which set up and provided funding to Charity Bank and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise. The Commissioners concluded that in the circumstances the proper safeguards were in place and the independence of the charity was protected.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by an organisation whose object was to advance religion and which promoted the belief system, doctrines and practices known as Scientology.
The Commissioners considered the relevance of ECHR to considering and interpreting the relevant legal authorities, with respect to advancing religion, promoting moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community and public benefit.
The Commissioners considered the relevant authorities and concluded that religion for the purposes of charity law constituted belief in a supreme being, an expression of belief in that system through worship, an advancement or promotion of the religion and that the necessary public benefit was evident. They concluded that the Church did not satisfy these requirements.
The Commissioners considered the relevant authorities and concluded that the key aspects of the purpose to promote the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community were that the doctrines, beliefs and practices involved were generally accessible to the public and were capable of being applied or adopted by them according to individual judgement or choice from time to time in such a way that the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community may result. They further concluded that the practice of Scientology and the purposes of the Church were not analogous to that purpose nor would it be likely to achieve such a purpose.
The Commissioners considered the public benefit requirement. They noted that public benefit for fourth head purposes must be proven and tended towards tangible and objective benefits. Where there were intangible benefits they required at least approval by the common understanding of enlightened opinion. The Commissioners concluded that public benefit arising out of the practice of Scientology and the purposes of the Church had not been established.
Review of a decision concerning the charitable status of an organisation set up to provide and operate a cyber café for the use of the local community living or working in an area of Croydon which was an area in social and economic deprivation. The cyber café would provide internet access facilities and provide educational activities on IT. Community Server had objects (1) to provide recreational facilities on terms based on the provisions of the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (“RCA”), (2) to advance education and (3) to provide a public amenity.
The Commissioners were satisfied that the targeted educational activities to be provided by Community Server were capable of furthering the advancement of education object.
The Commissioners considered the requirements as regards a charitable recreational facility under the RCA, namely that the charity must (1) provide or assist in the provision of recreational facilities (2) they must be provided in the interest of social welfare (satisfying the statutory requirements set out in s 1(2) RCA and the necessary elements of altruism and social obligation); and (3) satisfy the public benefit requirement. The Commissioners considered that the provision of a cyber café facility in the manner proposed could be regarded as a charitable recreational facility under the RCA and as a public amenity.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by an organisation with objects which included the promotion of national and international conflict resolution and reconciliation.
The Commission concluded that the promotion of conflict resolution in a national or international context was capable of being a charitable purpose for the public benefit. However, they noted that conflict resolution can be involved in promoting peace, which can be carried out by political means. Therefore, each case would need to be assessed to determine whether an organisation was established for such a charitable purpose for the benefit of the public or for a non-charitable political purpose. In this case, the Commission concluded that it was charitable and considered revised objects which more closely reflected the purposes Concordis was established for.
The Countryside Alliance Foundation applied for registration as a charity. It was an initiative of The Countryside Alliance (a campaigning organisation for those interested in the countryside and the rural way of life) which wanted to separate out and carry on the ‘charitable activities’ of the Alliance through the Foundation.
Concerns were : the education and research may not be neutral but rather promote a particular point of view; it originally had a conservation aim which did not fall within the Commission’s understanding of this object as a charitable purpose; phrases such as ‘rural life’ and ‘rural environment’ were not used in a sufficiently clear way; the private benefit to local producers and food retailers and others may be more than ancillary and incidental.
Original objects were not exclusively charitable. But the intention might be. On suitable clarification and evidence that the Foundation was not established to further the private interests of producers, then we could register.
Education and research, the ‘countryside’ could be a proper subject for education. The useful results of research must be published for the public benefit and not to promote the Alliance’s interests. However, the charitable purpose of advancing education for the benefit of the public does not require an absolute neutrality of view. The fact that the education starts from a generally accepted position does not of itself mean it promotes a point of view in a way that is not charitable. It could not be accepted that the promotion of ‘the countryside’ or ‘rural life’ or the ‘rural environment’ of itself would be charitable (even though those phrases may appear in different contexts in the objects of charities). To promote agriculture is charitable if undertaken for the benefit of the public and not principally for the benefit of those engaged in agriculture. Also the provision of a generally accessible market place for agricultural produce could be for the public benefit and charitable. The general promotion of agriculture for the public benefit includes demonstrating the results of applying techniques of agricultural production and also may very well include providing facilities for agricultural producers generally , or possibly producers of specific types of agricultural produce generally, to bring and display their wares for sale to the public. Public benefit would be in issue if the purpose is simply to ensure that farmers’ markets get a bigger share of the overall retail market. This has to be distinguished from promoting the interests of agriculturalists. Encouraging the purchase of locally grown food, the establishment of local markets for direct sale by producer to public, and farmers to use farmers’ markets to sell their produce direct, all had the potential for providing private benefit as a main purpose or object.
On the links between Foundation and Alliance, absent clear evidence that the Foundation was directed by the Alliance, links between them were not fatal to the application. It would be very desirable for there to be trustees independent from the Alliance’s executive or board.
The Foundation agreed to re-state the objects and strengthen the independence of the Foundation, ensure that there would be no non-incidental private benefits and not to promote the private interests of farmers’ markets, or individual businesses or producers. On that basis, the Commission agreed the registration.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status of an organisation which had objects to advance the education of the public in railways, railway modelling and allied pursuits. It previously existed as a non-charitable organisation and carried out a range of activities, from skills clinics, competitions, slide shows, club nights, social events and visits to places of railway interest.
After taking into consideration the quality and extent of the totality of the Society’s activities, the Commissioners considered that they were not sufficiently educational for them to conclude that the Society was established for educational purposes. In addition, on balance, the poise of the Society was focussed on the enjoyment and pleasure of the members and the recruitment of new members and therefore public benefit was not established. The Society was not charitable.
Consideration of an application for charitable status of an organisation which was an umbrella body and an information resource for community re-use and recycling bodies. It had objects to advance the education of the public in Wales concerning recycling and waste management, promoting scientific research and promoting the effectiveness and efficiency of other charities in the community recycling sector. The Commissioners considered that Cylch’s activities were also directed at the promotion of sustainable waste management. It was noted that the conservation and preservation of the environment was charitable. The Commissioners were satisfied that an additional object for the conservation and protection of the physical and natural environment by promoting sustainable waste management practices in the manner proposed could be added, that it satisfied the public benefit requirement and was charitable.
Review of a decision concerning the charitable status of an organisation with objects including to promote sustainable development by such means as are charitable. The Commissioners concluded that a qualifying formula in the objects that a non-charitable purpose is to be promoted “by such means as are charitable” was not an adequate way of limiting the expressed purposes to those which are exclusively charitable.
The Commissioners then considered whether and when the promotion of sustainable development might be charitable. They accepted that the promotion of sustainable development for the benefit of the public could be charitable provided that it was confined to purposes and activities recognised as charitable in law. The Commissioners considered how charitable aspects of such a purpose could be expressed. They accepted that these aspects were analogous with the preservation and conservation of the environment, the relief of poverty and promotion of urban and rural regeneration. They were satisfied that the purposes were for the benefit of the public.
Review of decisions to reject applications for registration from two companies established to benefit “ethnic English” people (as variously defined).
Background information raised considerable doubts about whether the companies would further their educational and research objects in a balanced, non-propagandist manner (as required by charity law), in view of the applicants’ known political links. The Members of the Commission concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated that the companies’ objects were for the public benefit, and so the companies could not be registered as charities.
The decision:
Review of a decision concerning the charitable status of a prospective trust to set up an appeal to raise funds to be used for commissioning a statue of a Fine Lady on a White Horse from the nursery rhyme “Ride a Cock Horse to Banbury Cross” in Banbury. The Commissioners reviewed the relevant law and Commission policy regarding the circumstances in which the provision and maintenance of a statue, monument or memorial could be charitable. They concluded that it could be an activity in support of any charitable purpose providing there was a link between the activity and the charitable purpose, there was sufficient public benefit and the private benefits were legitimately incidental.
In this case, the statue, taking into consideration its aesthetic value, the connection between the subject and Banbury and its relevance in folklore and local heritage and traditions, could be capable of enhancing and improving the local environment for the benefit of the public and was of sufficiently high standard to be accepted as a work of art, capable of promoting the appreciation of the arts for the benefit of the public.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by the body responsible under statute for the registration of medical practitioners in the UK and the regulation of the training for, and the practice of medicine by, those registered medical practitioners. The Commissioners considered the court (and therefore the Commission’s) ability (jurisdiction) to consider an organisation’s status which has previously been considered by the courts and the use of extraneous materials when considering issues of charitable status.
GMC’s activities were directed to the regulation and supervision of the profession. The Commissioners considered in what circumstances a body set up to regulate the profession could be charitable. They concluded that the purpose of the GMC was to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the community by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine. This was charitable, being analogous to the protection of life and property and the promotion of health and public benefit being evident.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by an organisation with objects which included the advancement of the Jewish religion by (amongst other means) promoting the doctrine of Aliyah, being the promotion of the return of Jewish people to the land promised to them by God.
Whilst the Commission considered that GNFI pursued its activities with the intention of advancing the Jewish religion, activities that involved the taking of steps to make the doctrine of Aliyah a physical reality and sought to directly facilitate the settlement of Jewish people in Israel seemed to have implications which went beyond the religious and spiritual. It was not, therefore, clear that these activities were solely directed to advancing religion.
The Commission did not accept that the establishment of the state of Israel meant that the settlement of Jewish people in Israel can now be accepted as furthering a religious purpose when previously it could not. There continue to be implications which go beyond the spiritual and religious, and which raise political, economic, social and civil order issues. As the promotion of the doctrine of Aliyah had such implications, it was not possible for the Commission to determine whether the organisation was established for the public benefit.
The Commission concluded that GNFI is not charitable as it is not established for exclusively charitable purposes, the promotion of a particular religious doctrine is not necessarily advancement of religion in the charitable sense and it is not possible to establish whether GNFI is established for the public benefit.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by an organisation set up to establish and maintain a comprehensive database about the charitable sector. The Commission recognised that the promotion of the voluntary sector for the benefit of the public was a new charitable purpose being analogous to the promotion of commerce and industry, promoting the moral and spiritual welfare or improvement of the community and promoting good citizenship. Public benefit was also satisfied. Taking into account the nature of its activities and evidence presented about their potential impact, the Commission was satisfied that Guidestar was established for the exclusively charitable purpose of promoting the voluntary sector for the benefit of the public by the provision of the database in the manner proposed.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status by an organisation providing a system whereby users of the internet can prevent access to websites based on objective information about the content of the website and the subjective preferences of the users. The Commissioners noted that the care and protection of children who are in some way disadvantaged or defenceless was charitable. They considered public benefit and the private benefits to members arising from the activities. They also considered the extent to which the activities were protecting free speech on the internet, whether this was a political purpose and the relevance of Article 10 of the ECHR. The Commissioners concluded that the purpose of ICRA was charitable being the advancement of the protection of the public, particularly children and young people from harm arising from contact with unsuitable material on the internet.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status by an organisation promoting The Radiance Technique which is described as a “precise technique for balancing your energies throughout your whole physical-emotional-mental-spiritual dynamic”.
The Commissioners considered whether the organisation’s activities were in furtherance of any of the following charitable purposes: advancing education; advancing health; or promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community.
The Commissioners concluded that the organisation’s activities were not sufficiently structured or have the appropriate level or quality of material to be considered to be advancing education as understood in charity law. The Commissioners were satisfied that it had not been demonstrated to them that the organisation’s activities may or would be capable of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community. The Commissioners further concluded that some proof of efficacy would be required before accepting that a particular therapy was capable of advancing health for the public benefit. It was also noted that The Radiance Technique does not claim to be a medical science.
It was therefore concluded that the organisation is not a charity.
Review of a decision concerning the charitable status of an organisation with objects to advance education using information technology and promote a multi–disciplinary approach to learning and study. Its activities concerned establishing an electronic forum which would review the results of study undertaken by a member of the forum and then publish the resulting material, primarily through electronic means.
The Commissioners considered and reviewed what advancing education in the charity law sense means and extends to in modern society. The Commissioners considered that advancing education was wide ranging and covered formal education, training, research, encouraging the public’s appreciation of the arts as well as broader education in developing capabilities, skills and understanding in a less formal manner.
The Commissioners considered that the definition of education as being information or training provided in a structured manner for genuinely educational purposes was helpful as a modern definition of charitable education. They considered “structured manner” in this context would mean the material and/or processes used needed to be suitably organised and/or presented in a way so they were capable of advancing the knowledge and abilities of the intended recipients.
Although simply imparting information which was unstructured or of no educational value could not be charitable:-
The Commissioners considered Millennium College’s activities and concluded that the forum’s activities were capable of developing learning and the processes used were suitably structured and appropriate to the needs of the students. They considered that the material published was capable of imparting knowledge and advancing education. They were further satisfied that the activities were for the benefit of the public and were sufficiently available to a sufficient section of the public.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status by an organisation promoting spiritual healing. The Commissioners considered the promotion of public health and the relief of sickness as charitable purposes, as well as the Commission’s approach to considering Complementary and Alternative Therapies (CATs). Having considered the evidence presented, the Commissioners considered that the promotion of spiritual healing was capable of being charitable as relieving stress and promoting public health in certain circumstances.
In this case, the activities of NFSH were capable of furthering the relief of sickness and promotion of public health. The public benefit requirement was also met. The private benefits to the members were legitimately incidental. The purpose of NFSH, being to promote public health by the promotion of spiritual healing for the benefit of the public by educating and training healers and by ensuring proper standards in the practice of spiritual healing, was exclusively charitable.
Odstock Private Care Limited was proposed for registration with objects to relieve sickness and preserve the health of patients by providing healthcare facilities and ancillary services at Salisbury District Hospital. There was a statutory limit on the capacity of Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust to benefit from private health care work. Clinicians wished to bring private work in and the Hospital would benefit from the extra income. Odstock was formed for such a purpose by means of a loan from the NHS Foundation Trust. It would (a) enter into agreements with patients and insurance companies for the provision of private care and (b) contract with the NHS Foundation Trust for the provision of staffed facilities to enable that work to be carried out by clinicians at the hospital. A general referral system to Odstock involving GPs over a very wide area was in place. The Commission’s concern was that people in poverty would be precluded from benefit for lack of ability to meet the high cost.
Charges were kept low. Odstock had fewer overheads and was committed to keep the charges as low as possible. It was claimed that: people on low incomes in Salisbury could access treatment; there was a wider public benefit since “any surpluses” would be ploughed back into additional NHS facilities available generally at the Hospital; treating some patients privately will have knock-on effects on the efficiency of the hospital for NHS patients; insurance was available to poorer patients. (There was no positive evidence submitted in this case that medical insurance is affordable by people in poverty.)
The scales of charges indicated in the private care tariffs were not affordable and accessible by everyone. The Commission found that Odstock’s scheme is not available to the public at large but only to those with the ability to pay the fees. The Commission would need evidence that the opportunity to benefit was in principle available to the public generally. That must include the whole range of the public from people in poverty to those who were well off. In particular, people in poverty must not be excluded from benefit.
Surpluses for application more generally for NHS work was likely to be minimal since the organisation is said to be operating (as a matter of practice and policy) on very low margins. The indirect benefit inferred from the fact of private work undertaken freeing up NHS time and accelerating NHS waiting lists would not, of itself (and failing the demonstration of more direct benefits), be sufficient to establish that Odstock’s purposes may so be operated as to benefit the public generally. Failing direct provision of financial assistance by Odstock to poor people who were sick, they would need to fall back on insurance. It had not been shown that relevant insurance is affordable by people on low incomes. Thus those in poverty had not been shown to be capable of benefiting in a real sense, either directly or indirectly. The requirement for the applicants to show public benefit in this case was not discharged.
Review of a decision concerning an application from Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES) – the Trustee of the Charity - for authority to enter into a lease of part of the Recreation Ground, Bath for a fixed term of less than one year to Bath Rugby PLC.
The Commission received a request for a decision review and considered the representations from a local resident of Bath made to the Commission in relation to the proposed order.
The Commission considered the findings of a strategic review recently undertaken by BANES of the current and future uses of the Rec, and the grounds for the decision by BANES to grant the proposed lease.
The Commission was satisfied that
a) the proposed lease can be authorised by the Commission;
b) BANES, as Trustee, has exercised its discretion properly in deciding to enter into the proposed lease agreement; and
c) the proposed lease is beneficial and in the interests of the Charity
and it was expedient in the interests of the Charity for BANES to grant the proposed lease provided that it complied with the directions of the order made by the Commission.
Consideration of an application for charitable status by an organisation which promotes recycling. Its activities included providing a recycling scrap yard, a shop where donated and renovated items were sold and educational programmes about environmental matters relating to recycling. It was accepted that the conservation and protection of the physical and natural environment was charitable. Public benefit was satisfied; of particular relevance was evidence of the public policy recognition of environmental benefits of recycling. The purposes of RiO were to protect and safeguard the environment for the benefit of the public, particularly by promoting reuse and recycling as a means of waste disposal and the provision of recycling facilities and to advance education about environmental matters relating to recycling and as such were exclusively charitable.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status promoting restorative justice whose activities included providing material and holding conferences on restorative justice, developing standards in restorative justice and collating and promoting research into it. As public benefit was not evident, extraneous material about the organisation’s activities was considered.
The issue of what was meant by restorative justice was considered. They understood it in general terms to mean a process whereby offenders and victims, or other parties with a stake in a conflict or offence, meet to discuss the effect of a crime or other anti social behaviour on themselves and the wider community.
The Commissioners accepted that promotion of restorative justice could be charitable as a new novel charitable purpose, by analogy to the preservation of public order and the prevention of breaches of the peace, the protection of life and property and the promotion of the sound administration of the law. Public benefit was also satisfied.
The Commissioners concluded that the purpose of RJCL was to promote restorative justice for the benefit of the public as a means of resolving conflict and promoting reconciliation by certain means and that those means were capable of doing so. As such its purpose was exclusively charitable.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status by a Spiritualist church. The Commissioners considered whether the form of spiritualism promoted by Sacred Hands met the criteria which charities with the purpose of the advancement of religion have to meet. Those criteria were set out in the Church of Scientology Decision , namely, a belief in a supreme being, worship of that being, advancement of the religion and public benefit.
The Commissioners further considered that the promotion of mediumship and clairvoyancy (on the evidence provided) was sufficiently incorporated within the religious practices and as such were acceptable charitable activities.
The Commissioners concluded that the form of spiritualism promoted by Sacred Hands satisfied the criteria and was established exclusively for the advancement of religion. It was therefore charitable.
Review of a decision to make an order under section 36(1) of the Charities Act 1993 authorising a disposal under an option. An option is a type of agreement to sell and charity trustees will usually need to comply with section 36(3) or (5) before granting an option. However, the Commission considered that where an option was granted as part of the arrangements for a purchase, section 36 did not apply. This would still mean that when the option was exercised, an order under section 36 was required from the Commission as section 36 clearly applies to such a disposal. The Commission considered that in such circumstances it should follow the approach set out in the case of Moore v Clench (1875) 1 Ch Div 447. Accordingly, it considered it should grant an order authorising a disposal under an option which had not engaged section 36(3) of (5) unless there were exceptional circumstances which would make it reasonable not to do so. Where it made such an order it would not need to be satisfied that the disposal was made at the full open market value.
The Commission therefore concluded that the decision to make the section 36(1) order in this case had been rightly made.
Review of two separate decisions regarding applications for charitable status from TCLT and WLCT. Both organisations were responsible for the culture, leisure and associated services previously operated by Trafford Borough Council and Wigan Council respectively.
The two principal legal issues were (i) whether TCLT and WLCT were sufficiently independent from the respective local authorities; and (ii) the extent to which TCLT and WLCT could be charities if they were established to carry out statutory duties imposed on the respective local authorities. The Commissioners concluded that both TCLT and WLCT should be registered as charities.
Independence: The Commissioners noted the criteria in the Commission’s guidance “RR7 – The Independence of Charities from the State”. On the facts, the Commissioners concluded that no issues of independence arose in relation to TCLT and WLCT respectively.
Statutory Duties: Provided new organisations are established for exclusively charitable purposes, operating for the public benefit and independent, there is no rule of law prohibiting such organisations from being charities notwithstanding that they carry out statutory duties of a governmental authority.
In addition, it is possible for existing charities to undertake services which a governmental authority is under a statutory duty to provide. The extent to which a charity can do this is a matter for the charity’s trustees. In properly exercising their discretion the trustees will need to consider a range of factors and the decisions set out the guiding principles for trustees.
It was noted that the relief of general or local taxation is in certain circumstances a charitable purpose, but it is not necessary for this purpose to be present in a charity’s objects for charitable funds to be used to discharge the functions of a governmental authority.
Review of a decision concerning an application for charitable status by an organisation set up to establish and maintain a wolf centre in Scotland. It was noted that it could be charitable to conserve a species of animal including, in appropriate circumstances, animals dangerous to humans but that it was not charitable to promote the rights of animals nor was it necessarily charitable to promote the welfare of animals. It was also noted that a purpose to promote a change in the law or bring about a change in government policy was a political purpose and could not be charitable. Nor could a purpose to promote a propagandist or particular point of view.
The nature and scope of the Wolf Trust’s activities were considered by the Commissioners for the purpose of considering public benefit. The Commissioners concluded that the Wolf Trust’s primary purpose was to promote the introduction of the wolf into Scotland as an end in itself. That purpose was designed to influence the opinion of the public and the decisions of the relevant government authorities and neither the court nor the Commission could determine whether such a purpose was for the benefit of the public. As such it was not established for exclusively charitable purposes and was not a charity.