Charities Essay

The level-headed definition of bounty has historically been both(prenominal)(a)what elusive and stands app arnt from every understanding of charity in a oecumenical or popular sense. As Lord Wright observed, in its legal sense the intelligence information eleemosynary is a word of art, of precise and technical meaning1. Viscount Simmonds advance remarked that, no comprehensive definition of legal charity has been tending(p) all by legislature or in judicial utterance, thither is no limit to the number and diversity of ship canal in which man im expound research to bring in his fellow men.The Preamble to the Charitable Uses b knocked out(p) 1601, also referred to as the Statute of Elizabeth I, contained a list of designs which were then regarded as beneficent. It assumed a central role for the judgeships as a extension service point or catalogue of authorized instances of charity until almost three hundred years later when Lord MacNaughten in the Pemsel bailiwick , famously yrified harmonic objects into four principal divisions (i) imprecates for the relief of poverty, (ii) trusts for the progression of education, (iii) trusts for the advancement of organized faith, (iv) trusts beneficial to the fellowship not falling under any of the preceding heads.These four heads of charity were used as reference whenever the inherent kindly nature of a excogitation or institution was questi unmatchabled until the Charities shape 2006 received royal assent. slit 2(2) of the 2006 Act now provides a innovative statutory definition of charity by listing 13 descriptions of marks deemed beneficent at fair play. In clubhouse to be kind-hearted, an organisation has to be conventional for one or much aspirations deep down the descriptions treasure by the legal philosophy as surefooted of be charitable, and for the customary benefit.Charity law in England and Wales has developed within the background of the traditional monotheistic religi ons but it has embraced for many years religions other(a) than Christianity and Judaism. In Bowman3, Lord Parker effectively held that it was not just the progression of Christianity that would be recognised but that the Courts of this country were not precluded from giving effect to trusts for the purposes of religions which, however spiritual they whitethorn be to millions of His Majestys subjects, either deny the equity of Christianity or, at any rate, do not accept some of its vestigial doctrines.Furthermore in the Commissions Scientology4 decision it was firmly established that The law does not prefer one religion to another and as between religions the law stands neutral5. The English courts have, for a long time, resisted well-nigh defining what makes some look systems sacred and others not.However in the Scientology case, the Commissioners accepted that on that point ar various characteristics of religion which back end be discerned from the legal authorities Be lief in a god or a deity or supreme being R v record-keeper General6 Two of the essential attributes of religion argon reliance and worship faith in a god and worship of that god South distance Ethical Society7 To advance religion meat to promote it, to spread the cognitive content ever wider among mankind to undertake some positive steps to declare and increase religious belief and these things are done in a variety of ways which may be comprehensively described as pastoral and missioner. join Grand Lodge v Holborn BC8.Having considered these characteristics, the Commissioners conclude that the definition of a religion in English charity law was characterised by a belief in a supreme being and an expression of that belief through worship. This definition is further refined in the 2006 Act where s2 (3) a gives a partial definition of the word religion.However, the law does not automatically recognise as a religion everything that may designate itself as a religion and t here are some principles to which a purpose must conform if it is to be regarded as within the Charities Acts description of the advancement of religion. These general principles are gathered from the common law of England and Wales but also take into trace the body of law which has developed concerning the European Convention right to granting immunity of thought, conscience and religion. As a general proposition, for its advancement to be capable of being charitable in this context, a religion should have a certain level of cogency, seriousness, coherence and importance9.Also, in order to be charitable for the advancement of religion, the content of any system of faith and worship has to be of a positive nature, impacting beneficially on the community. Sir John Wickens, V-C. in Cocks v Manners10 observed It is say, in some of the cases, that religious purposes are charitable, but that can only be true as to religious services charge directly or indirectly towards the instructi on or the edification of the earthHence, to be charitable a religious purpose has to be serious, be given directly or indirectly to the lesson and spiritual improvement of the prevalent as well as being for the public benefit. In Holmes v Attorney General11 Walton J commented It is not for the benefit of the adherents of the religion themselves that the law confers charitable status, it is in the interests of the public. Hence, as a general proposition, in the case of charities for the advancement of religion the purpose must not simply be for the benefit of the followers of the occurrence religion. Formerly, the proposition stated that as between variant religions the law stands neutral, but it assumes that any religion is at least in all likelihood to be better than no(prenominal)12.Plowman J in Re Watson13 considered a case for the publication and distribution of the fundamentalist Christian writings of an individual where he quoted authority that the court does not pr efer one religion or sect to another and said that where the purposes in interrogate are of a religious nature then the court assumes a public benefit unless the contrary is shown. He then went on to evidence that the only way of disproving a public benefit is to show that the doctrines inculcated are adverse to the very foundations of all religion, and that they are subversive of all morality.However, that part of the judgment being inconsistent with the judgment of the court of appeal and opinions given by the House of Lords in Gilmour v Coats, where it was held the question whether a trust is beneficial to the public is an entirely different one from the question whether a trust is for the advancement of religion, it is not regarded a binding.Since the Charities Act 2006, there is no longer any presumption that, because a purpose fall within the description the advancement of religion, it is for the public benefit. Section 3(2) of the Act provides In determining whether the p ublic benefit requirement is satisfied in sexual relation to any purpose, it is not to be presumed that a purpose of a concomitant description is for the public benefit. Hence, with the removal of the presumption and in the modern context the proposition may now be interpreted as meaning that advancing religion can be seen as a public good if such(prenominal) advancement can be show to be in relation to a system having a clement and positive content which is being advanced for the benefit of the public.Over the years, there are some purposes which, despite being beneficial and religious and then seriously religious, did not fall within the legal framework. For example, fostering secret piety, although being a religious activity, is not a charitable purpose due to the absence of benefit to the public. In Cocks v Manners14 (supra) it was said that a voluntary association of women for the purpose of working out their own repurchase by religious exercises and self-denial seems to h ave none of the requisites of a charitable institution. In the Re Joy15 case it was held that the real object contemplated by the testate was the non-charitable purpose of improvement of the membership of a society by invocation.Further, in Re White16, it was held that a society for the promotion of privy prayer and devotions by its own members and which has no wider scope, no public element, and no purpose of general utility would not be charitable. Lord Simonds in the Gilmour17 case later support the decision in Cocks v Manners and said that activities good in themselves but solely designed to benefit individuals associated for the purpose of securing that benefit, which may not have some repercussions or consequential set up beneficial to some section of the general community do not meet the prerequisites of a charitable institution. In Re Warres allow for Trusts, on the matter of a retreat house, Harman J said Activities which do not in any way affect the public or any se ction of it are not charitable.Pious contemplation and prayer are, no doubt, good for the soul, and may be of benefit by some intercessory process, of which the law takes no notice, but they are not charitable activities. Thus, in Re Hetherington18 it was held that the celebration of a religious rite in private does not contain the necessary element of public benefit since any benefit of prayer or example is incapable of proof in the legal sense and any element of spiritual or moral improvement (edification) is limited to a private not public class of those present at the celebration. However, in the same case it was also held that the prop of a religious service which is open to the public is capable of conferring a sufficient public benefit because of the edifying and improving effect of such celebration on the members of the public who attend. There are also other purposes related to religion whose pursuits have not been considered as charitable because the purpose itself is no t exclusively charitable. For example a trust for Roman Catholic purposes may not be for exclusively charitable purposes furthering the Roman Catholic faith19. Also a gift to an Anglican vicar of a parish for parochial institutions or purpose20 was not considered charitable. A bequest to an archbishop to be applied in any manner he might think best for percentage to carry on the work of the Church in Wales21 is not charitable either and neither is a generally stated purpose for religious, educational and other parochial requirements22.On the other hand, In Re Schoales23, it was subtle that there is no distinction, from the point of view of validity as a gift for charitable purposes, between a gift to the Church of England and a gift to another Church. A gift for the general purposes of a particular church or denomination or faith community fall are considered in law as a gift which has to be applied only for such of its purposes as are for the advancement of religion for the publ ic benefit, and hence charitable. As mentioned above, charitable purposes require some promotion or advancement that is to spread its message ever wider among mankind to take some positive steps to nurture and increase religious belief24.Proselytising is one way of advancing religious purposes25 but it may maturate public benefit issues if it breaks the law or results in harm or disadvantage. Therefore, it would not be compatible with public benefit principles for an organisation to seek to inhibit anyone from their rights of freedom of thought, conscience or religion (Article 9 ECHR) and to endorse or change such beliefs. This matter was considered in Kokkinakis v Greece26 and the court in considering attempts to forbid activities of a Jehovahs Witness confirmed that a democratic society has a plurality of beliefs and held that freedom to straightforward ones religion includes the right to convince ones neighbor.But, the court drew a clear distinction between posture Christia n witness and improper proselytism by stating that the former was true evangelism and the last mentioned representing a corruption or deformation of it. Furthermore, proselytising being unlawful in some countries, the Commission dealt with the issue of whether it was possible to recognise a religious purpose as charitable in England and Wales which is not charitable and may be illegal abroad in its annual report in 1993 which mentioned One should first consider whether they would be regarded as charities if their operations are confined to the United Kingdom.If they would, then they should be presumed also to be charitable even though operating abroad unless it would be contrary to public policy to recognise them. Hence, an organisation whose purpose is to proselytize, even if its activity is carried out internationally, may be charitable in England and Wales unless it causes harm or detriment which outweighs the public benefit. The High Court considered the statement in the Sonsin o case27 in 2002 and upheld it. However, it unbosom remains unclear as to what the courts would rule contrary to public policy. other way of advancing a religion would be by means of undertaking pastoral work.However, where a charity is operating solely for the purpose of advancement of religion, then any secular pastoral work which it undertakes should be as a means of advancing the particular religion. A convent in Cocks v Manners28 was held charitable and there the nuns were engaged in exterior industrial plant (teaching the ignorant and nursing the sick) as part of their religious work.In the United Grand Lodge29 case, Donovan J said that taking positive steps to sustain and increase religious beliefs was something done in a variety of ways which can be comprehensively described as pastoral and missionary. More recently, the Pilsdon Community House, a religious community living concord to Christian principles and giving practical help in cases of drug addiction, drink, havin g been in prison or loneliness was considered in Re Banfield30. The court held that the fact that a religious community makes its services available to those of all creeds and of none does not prevent it being a charity for the advancement of religion also that furthering the purposes of the community amounted to the advancement of religion.