Paste your essay in here…For the money left by Fred to be held under a charitable trust, the purposes of the trust must be exclusively charitable, as seen in S 1(1)(a) Charities Act 2011 . Since Fred specified the purpose of the trust as being the furtherance of the purposes of The Saved, we must thus consider whether the purposes of The Saved are legally and exclusively charitable.
Advancement of Religion (Charitable Purpose)
For The Saved to have legally charitable purposes, their purposes would have to come under the list of recognised charitable purposes set out in S 3 Charities Act 2011 (The Act) as well as fulfil the public benefit requirement in section 4 of The Act . Considering how the purposes of The Saved as a potential religious group are not clearly defined, we must proceed on the assumption that their purposes would be advancing their beliefs and practices. On the current facts, it would thus seem that the advancement of religion is the most relevant charitable purpose.
The first matter to consider would be whether the practices and beliefs of The Saved constitute a religion, which would then allow their purposes to be held as charitable. The Act includes religions “which involves belief in more than one god” , thus allowing for the three deities that are worshipped by The Saved. With reference to previous applications to be recognised as charitable religious organisations, we must first note the case of the Church of Scientology. Scientology failed to be recognised as a religion as its practices, which involved study, therapy and counselling, were not held to be “conduct indicative of reverence or veneration for the being” . The activities of The Saved do not seem to include similar practices to that of the church and the weekly ceremonies could constitute acts that are indicative of reverence for The Three. Thus it could be argued that their practices and beliefs constitute a religion.
However, the definition of religion for charitable purposes has evolved over recent years. In the Hodkin case, a new definition of religion was used by the court, which allowed Scientology to be recognised as a religion. The new definition suggests that a religion is a belief system going beyond sensory perception or scientific data and claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe while teaching its adherents how to live their lives in conformity with this belief system . Under this definiton, The Saved are less likely to be considered a religious group as their beliefs do not seem comprehensive enough to constitute a system. Given how their beliefs only seem to apply to those in the group and do not involve any other members of society, it seems clear that their beliefs also do not attempt to explain the entire mankind’s place in the universe. Furthermore, The Saved can be compared to the Temple of the Jedi Order, which was denied charitable status as it did not follow a sufficiently “cogent and distinct” religion. In the case of the Temple, the lack of formal expression and promotion of the beliefs of the adherents coupled with the potential for adherents to simply see the religion as a way of life or philosophy resulted in the Charity Commission deciding that Jediism was not a proper religion . Crucially, the beliefs of The Saved are also not expressed with any kind of formalities and lack the necessary stucture to even be considered a system of beliefs. While it can be argued that the weekly ceremonies of The Saved qualify as a form of “worship, reverence and adoration, veneration intercession” that the Jedi Temple case defines as part of religion, the lack of formal expression and structure in their beliefs still render them invalid. As such, it would seem that the beliefs and practices of The Saved are unlikely to succeed as a sufficiently “cogent and distinct religion” .
Advancement of Religion (Public Benefit)
Even if the beliefs of The Saved could constitute a legitimate religion, they would still need to fulfil the public benefit requirement as a religious organisation. As set out in R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission, public benefit is assessed on two aspects: whether the nature of the purpose itself is a benefit to the community and whether the group benefitting from the purpose is substantial enough to constitute “a section of the public” . Assuming that the The Saved follow a legitimate religion, their purpose of advancing their religion would be beneficial on the first aspect. However, this is not the case with regards to the second aspect.
With only thirty-seven members being party to the practice of the religion, those who are potentially benefitting are unlikely to constitute a section of the public. This is supported by how whole student bodies of independent schools were only considered a section of the public after the provision of benefits to those who could not afford the fees in the Independent Schools Council case . Compared with such a precedent, it would seem that those who are benefitting are not substantial enough to fulfil the second aspect of public benefit. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any non-members can benefit from the religious practices of The Saved. In Gilmour v Coats, which concerned a group of Roman Catholic nuns living and practising their religion in seclusion, it was held that there was no provable public benefit as the results of the practice of their religion were not communicated to the public . Likewise, the activities of The Saved are conducted entirely in private homes and the rest of society is actively prohibited from participating. As such, it would seem that much like the nuns in Gilmour, The Saved have not communicate their practices and the results of such practices to the public, making it unlikely for the rest of the public to derive any kind of provable benefit from their religious purposes.
While it may seem plausible to contend that “some benefit accrues to the public from the attendance at places of worship of persons who live in this world and mix with their fellow citizens” , as seen in Neville Estates Ltd v Madden, we can distinguish the instant case from Madden on the facts. The Madden case involved adeherents of a religion visiting places of worship, specifically a synagogue . This cannot be compared with the weekly gatherings of The Saved in private homes as such venues are not recognised as places of worship. Thus, the purpose of advancement of religion does not seem to be present in the instant case.
Prevention or Relief of Poverty
It is also possible that the purposes of The Saved could qualify under the charitable purpose of prevention or relief of poverty as stated in S 3(1)(a) Charities Act 2011 . The act of the group supporting the members in financial need would seem to indicate the presence of the aforementioned purpose as it would, to an extent, alleviate poverty amongst the members.
As for assessing public benefit for the purposes of S 4 Charities Act 2011 , the nature of the purpose itself would qualify as a benefit to the community in that alleviating poverty would contribute to the overall wellbeing of society. There is then the question of whether those benefitting would constitute a section of the public. Based on the case of Dingle v Turner, a gift to alleviate poverty will only be deemed charitable if the intention of the gift is to benefit the “poor generally who fell within a certain description” , rather than certain individuals. The basis of this reasoning was that those who came under the description would constitute a section of the public, thus fulfilling the requirement of public benefit. In Dingle, the specification of “the poor employees” of a company was sufficient to qualify as a section of the public . Similarly, the supporting of those in financial need in The Saved suggests that the intention is to benefit the poor who fall within the description of being members of the group, thus constituting a benefit to a section of the public and fulfilling the public benefit requirement. As such it can be said that The Saved fulfils the purpose of the prevention or relief of poverty.
The application of the reasoning from Dingle here may seem to contradict that of Gilmour in prior analysis, however we must distinguish the cases on the basis that they concern different heads of charitable purposes. As mentioned in Dingle, whether the requirement for a section of the public to benefit is fulfilled is “a question of degree” and does not determine charitable status on its own. Instead, charitable status largely depends on the purpose of a trust , and thus we must differentiate between the various charitable purposes before we consider their public benefit.
Conclusion
The Saved are unlikely to be held as having the charitable purpose of the advancement of religion but they do fulfil the requirement for the charitable purpose of the prevention or relief of poverty. In spite of this, Fred’s charitable trust will fail as The Saved do not have exclusively charitable purposes. In Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson, the allowance for “benevolent” and thus non-charitable causes, rendered a gift uncharitable . The purposes of The Saved do not seem to be limited to supporting poorer members as they also conduct their weekly ceremonies of worship, as such they cannot be said to have exclusively charitable purposes. Therefore, Fred’s trust will ultimately fail as it will not have exclusively charitable purposes by reference to the purposes of The Saved.