Southwood & Anor v Attorney General

A trust expressed as advancing education is charitable only if its educational purpose promotes public benefit in the legal sense. Education that begins from the premise that peace is generally preferable to war may qualify. Education directed towards acceptance of a particular political solution, such as demilitarisation or reliance on a military alliance, is different. The court cannot determine which contested governmental or foreign-policy choice best promotes public benefit without usurping the role of government. A trust whose dominant purpose is to advocate such a policy, even through research and publication, is therefore political and cannot be recognised as charitable.

The appellants appealed from the decision of Mr Justice Carnwath in the Chancery Division, which upheld the Charity Commissioners’ refusal to register the Project on Demilitarisation as a charity under section 4(3) of the Charities Act 1993.

The trust deed described its primary object as advancing public education in militarism, disarmament and related fields. Background material and briefing papers stated aims of challenging Western militarism, promoting disarmament and converting military resources to civilian uses. The central issue was whether the dominant purpose was educational and charitable, or political because it sought to change government policy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trust could not be recognised as charitable because its dominant purpose was political.
2. The court must examine whether the stated educational purpose promotes public benefit. Express charitable language in a trust deed is not conclusive. The deed must be construed in light of the circumstances and material showing the nature and scope of the intended activities.
3. There is no public-benefit objection to education beginning from the premise that peace is generally preferable to war, or to education about differing means of securing peace and avoiding war. That premise is distinct from the controversial proposition that peace at any price is always preferable to war.
4. The court cannot determine whether educating the public to accept one contested policy for securing peace is for the public benefit. The choice between bargaining through strength, unilateral disarmament, demilitarisation, or collective security through a military alliance involves governmental and political judgment. The court must not usurp the role of government.
5. The background paper and briefing documents showed that the Project was intended to advocate demilitarisation, disarmament and a change in the United Kingdom’s policy concerning NATO and collective military security. The educational activity was therefore directed to securing acceptance of a particular policy, rather than impartially educating the public about competing approaches.
6. Chadwick LJ gave the leading judgment. May LJ and Kennedy LJ agreed. The appeal was dismissed with costs, with liberty to apply concerning costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Chancery Division dismissed. May LJ and Kennedy LJ agreed with Chadwick LJ’s reasons.
• Chancery Division: Mr Justice Carnwath upheld the Charity Commissioners’ refusal to register the trust as charitable.
• Charity Commissioners for England and Wales: Refused registration of the trust.