Introduction
The case of McGovern v Attorney General [1982] Ch 321 is a landmark decision in English charity law, addressing the boundaries of charitable purposes, particularly those involving political activities. The Chancery Division, presided over by Slade J, examined whether trusts with political objectives could qualify as charitable under the Charitable Uses Act 1601 and subsequent legislation. The judgment clarified the legal principles governing charitable trusts, emphasizing the exclusion of political purposes from the definition of charity. This case remains a key reference for understanding the connection of charity law and political advocacy.
Charitable trusts are established for purposes that benefit the public, as defined under the law. The Charitable Uses Act 1601, also known as the Statute of Elizabeth, laid the basis for charitable purposes, which were later codified in the Charities Act 2011. A key requirement for a trust to be recognized as charitable is that its purposes must fall within the spirit and intendment of the 1601 Act. Political purposes, however, are excluded because they are considered to lack the necessary public benefit and are by nature contentious. The McGovern case explored this exclusion in detail, providing a framework for assessing whether a trust's purposes are charitable or political.
The Legal Framework of Charitable Trusts
Charitable trusts are governed by a well-established legal framework that distinguishes them from private trusts. The primary distinction lies in the nature of their purposes. Charitable trusts must serve purposes that are beneficial to the public, as opposed to private trusts, which benefit specific individuals. The Charitable Uses Act 1601 enumerated a list of charitable purposes, including the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, and the promotion of religion. These purposes were later expanded and codified in the Charities Act 2011, which now serves as the primary legislation governing charitable trusts in the UK.
To qualify as charitable, a trust must satisfy two key requirements. First, its purposes must fall within the spirit and intendment of the 1601 Act. Second, the trust must provide a public benefit. The public benefit requirement ensures that the trust's purposes are directed toward the general public or a sufficient section of it, rather than a private group. The McGovern case focused on the first requirement, specifically whether political purposes could be considered charitable under the 1601 Act.
Political Purposes and Charitable Trusts
The exclusion of political purposes from the definition of charity is rooted in the principle that charitable trusts must serve purposes that are beneficial to the public and not contentious. Political purposes are by nature contentious because they involve advocating for changes in law or government policy, which are matters of public debate. The courts have consistently held that such purposes do not fall within the spirit and intendment of the 1601 Act.
In McGovern v Attorney General, the plaintiffs sought to establish a trust for the purpose of supporting human rights, including the investigation of human rights abuses and the dissemination of information about such abuses. The court held that these purposes were political in nature because they involved advocating for changes in law and government policy. Slade J emphasized that the support of human rights, while laudable, could not be considered charitable because it was by nature contentious and involved political advocacy.
The judgment in McGovern clarified the distinction between charitable and political purposes. It established that a trust's purposes would be considered political if they involved advocating for changes in law or government policy, even if those changes were aimed at supporting public welfare. This principle has been upheld in subsequent cases, supporting the exclusion of political purposes from the definition of charity.
The Public Benefit Requirement
The public benefit requirement is a basic part of charity law, ensuring that charitable trusts serve purposes that are beneficial to the public. In McGovern v Attorney General, the court considered whether the trust's purposes provided a public benefit. The plaintiffs argued that the support of human rights was beneficial to the public because it aimed to protect individuals from abuses and encourage social justice. However, the court held that the public benefit requirement was not satisfied because the trust's purposes were political in nature.
The judgment in McGovern highlighted the importance of distinguishing between purposes that are beneficial to the public and those that are contentious. While the support of human rights may be beneficial in a broad sense, it becomes contentious when it involves advocating for changes in law or government policy. The court's decision highlighted the principle that charitable trusts must serve purposes that are widely accepted as beneficial and not subject to public debate.
Implications of the McGovern Decision
The McGovern decision has had significant implications for the regulation of charitable trusts in the UK. It has confirmed the exclusion of political purposes from the definition of charity, ensuring that charitable trusts remain focused on purposes that are universally accepted as beneficial. This principle has been upheld in subsequent cases, including National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1948] AC 31 and Southwood v Attorney General [2000] EWCA Civ 204.
The McGovern decision has also influenced the development of charity law in other jurisdictions. For example, in Australia, the High Court considered the exclusion of political purposes in Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 42. The court held that the support of public debate on government policy could be considered charitable if it contributed to public welfare. However, the court emphasized that the purposes must not be by nature contentious or involve advocating for changes in law.
Conclusion
The case of McGovern v Attorney General [1982] Ch 321 is a seminal decision in English charity law, clarifying the exclusion of political purposes from the definition of charity. The judgment established that charitable trusts must serve purposes that are beneficial to the public and not contentious. This principle has been upheld in subsequent cases, supporting the distinction between charitable and political purposes. The McGovern decision remains a key reference for understanding the legal framework governing charitable trusts and the public benefit requirement. By excluding political purposes, the courts have ensured that charitable trusts remain focused on purposes that are widely accepted as beneficial, thereby preserving the integrity of the charitable sector.
