McGovern v AG [1982] Ch 321

KEY POINTS

• Charitable purposes focus on activities that promote public benefit, including poverty relief, education, and social welfare. These actions must serve society rather than individuals, aligning with the legal standards of charity.

• Relief of prisoners of conscience refers to providing support for individuals imprisoned due to their beliefs. Charities working in this area offer legal aid, financial assistance, and advocacy for human rights, seeking their release and protection.

• Charities often work to change laws and policies to advance human rights and social justice. Through lobbying and advocacy, they aim to create lasting societal reforms.

• Charities research to monitor and report on global human rights practices, exposing violations and advocating for policy improvements.

• Charitable Uses Act 1601 laid the foundation for defining charitable purposes in law, including poverty relief, education, and public works, shaping modern charity regulations.

• The Charities Act 1960 modernized UK charity law, expanding the definition of charitable purposes and reinforcing the requirement that charities serve the public benefit.

FACTS

• Amnesty International, an unincorporated association, was founded in 1961 as a non-profit organization with the objective of promoting the observance of human rights standards, specifically for prisoners of conscience, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Despite not identifying it as a charity, Amnesty International received advice that some of its purposes were charitable. Consequently, in 1977, a declaration of trust was executed, creating the Amnesty International Trust (“Trust”) to manage the charitable aspects of its mission.

• The purposes of the Trust included:

1. Providing relief to needy individuals who were or had recently been prisoners of conscience and to their families.

2. Securing the release of prisoners of conscience.

3. Working toward the abolition of torture or inhuman treatment.

4. Promoting research on human rights observance and disseminating the findings.

• An application was submitted to the Charity Commission to register the Trust as a charity. However, the Charity Commission determined that the Trust's objectives were not exclusively charitable, preventing its registration under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960. Both parties acknowledged that the relief of needy persons if considered independently, would qualify as charitable.

• Edmund McGovern, Nicholas Harding, Eric Reginald Lubbock Fourth Baron Avebury, Paul Oestreicher, Alec Bristow, David Ive and Sir Osmond Williams (“Trustees”) sought a declaration through an originating summons, claiming that the Trust should be registered as a charity.

JUDGEMENT

• The court, refusing the declaration, held that while a Trust established for the relief of human suffering and distress could have been charitable, it ceased to be charitable if any of its main objectives were political. Trusts aimed at altering the laws of the United Kingdom or any foreign country, or those seeking to influence government policy or decisions, were inherently political. As such, the Trust’s objective of securing the release of prisoners of conscience through lawful persuasion to reverse governmental policies or decisions constituted a political aim. Given that this political objective affected all the purposes outlined in the Trust deed, the trust could not be deemed charitable.

• The court further held:

1. The Trust's objective of abolishing torture or inhuman or degrading treatment was interpreted within its broader context. It was understood as a political aim, as one of its purposes involved advocating for legislative reform to abolish capital and corporal punishment. Consequently, this Trust was also deemed political.

2. While the Trust’s purposes regarding research into human rights observance and the dissemination of such research could have contributed to public knowledge and thus been for the public benefit, they failed to qualify as charitable. Although there was a theoretical possibility that the trustees could have politically pursued these purposes, that alone would not have disqualified them from being charitable. However, the court found that, in context, these purposes were merely adjuncts to the political aims of the trust and thus could not be construed independently as charitable.

COMMENTARY

• The case concerning Amnesty International's attempt to register the Amnesty International Trust as a charity highlights the relationship between charitable objectives and political activity within the context of charity law.

• The court's decision shows the legal definition of charity, particularly within the framework of the Charities Act 1960, which mandates that charitable purposes must be exclusively charitable. The ruling emphasizes that a trust cannot be deemed charitable if it has political objectives, regardless of its humanitarian mission. This distinction illustrates the ongoing challenge in distinguishing between charitable work and political advocacy.

• The judgment highlights the importance of considering the broader context of a Trust's purposes. The court recognized that while research into human rights could contribute to public knowledge, its association with political aims ultimately overshadowed its potential charitable aspects. This aspect of the ruling illustrates a nuanced view of charity law, which requires organizations to carefully articulate their purposes to avoid being classified as political entities.

• The court's refusal to grant charitable status to the Amnesty International Trust highlights legal and ethical dilemmas facing organizations that straddle the line between charity and political activism. As the process of non-profits continues to evolve, it becomes increasingly important for both legal practitioners and organizations to understand these nuances to ensure compliance and effective advocacy.