Peter Martin Southwood and Another (Plaintiffs) v HM Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Carnwath,The Hon. Mr. Justice Carnwath |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWHC J0727-4 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CH 1995 S No. 5856 |
| Date | 28 July 1998 |
[1998] EWHC J0727-4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
The Hon. Mr. Justice Carnwath
CH 1995 S No. 5856
Dr. Peter Southwood appeared in person
Mr. W.H. Henderson instructed by the Treasury Solicitor appeared for the Defendant
Hearing
Dated: Friday 9th October 1998
1. This is an appeal under section 4(3) of the Charities Act 1993 against a decision of the Charity Commissioners given by letter dated 5th September 1995. They refused an application for registration as a charity by an organisation called The Project on Demilitarisation ("Prodem").
Factual background
2. Prodem was initially set up in July 1992 by Dr Peter Southwood and Dr Stephen Schofield, and operated initially from Dr Southwood's house in Oxford. Dr Southwood, who appeared in person before me on behalf of the trustees, describes himself as a researcher and consultant. The organisation was established with the benefit of a grant of £63,500 over two years from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. From December 1993 the main activities of Prodem were incorporated into the School of Business and Economic Studies at the University of Leeds, and he and Dr Schofield were employed as part-time research fellows there until July 1994. However, as he puts it, "a residual and separate Prodem" continued at his home, its main purpose being to challenge the Charity Commission's view, which had by then been made known informally, that Prodem did not qualify for registration as a charity.
3. A Declaration of Trust was executed by him and Dr Schofield on 9th June 1994 constituting Prodem as a separate trust, Dr Schofield and Dr Southwood being the sole trustees. After further correspondence with the Charity Commissioners, their formal decision of 5th September 1995 was issued, accompanied by a statement of reasons, rejecting the application for registration as a charity.
4. The present appeal was initiated by originating summons dated 26th September. Dr Southwood tells me that the decision to appeal was made by his casting vote as chairman and was not agreed by the other trustee Dr Schofield, whose place has since been taken by another trustee, Mr Parsons. Dr Southwood is continuing the appeal as a matter of principle, and intends to resign as a trustee once the Court's decision is known.
5. The original thinking behind the establishment of Prodem appears from a "background paper" prepared in October 1992, which formed part of the submission to the Charity Commission. The "purpose" and "aims" of Prodem were explained as follows:
" PURPOSE
Prodem is an educational body with a limited research capacity of its own, placing strong emphasis on utilising available findings and networking with existing organisations to achieve the most efficient use of resources in dissemination.
The focus of Prodem is the `new militarism' which is emerging as an integral part of the new world order. By militarism is meant an undue prevalence of warlike values and ideas. This manifests itself in proposals for excessive military forces, judged against any conceivable threat, and a level of military expenditure beyond the requirements for defence.
The term `new militarism' is used to emphasise the great sophistication of the phenomenon than earlier, cruder versions. There are very great dangers for Britain, and the wider world, if the contentions made by this new form of militarism are not tested against the facts. Its very skillfulness, in the management of public opinion and presentation of aggressive military postures as `defence', may lead eventually to over-confidence; and disastrous miscalculation (as has happened in the past). Over the long term Prodem hopes to advance public education on militarism and disarmament and also to develop transnational links for education on demilitarisation.
AIMS
The specific aims of the Project on Demilitarisation are:
1. To fundamentally question the new forms of militarism arising in the West in relation to:
- its current record;
- current official policies;
- the likely consequences for the future.
2. To propose alternative policies to achieve disarmament and a conversion of resources from military to civilian purposes."
6. The method of achieving the aims would be by briefings supplemented by public seminars. The intended audience would include "organisations and individuals with an interest in national economic priorities" and "peace research and peace organisations, labour groups and politicians with an interest in this area".
7. As to the nature of the briefings, the paper said:
"We believe that the opportunity cost argument is one which needs to be linked to the dangers of a continuing arms race if it is to make a significant impact on our primary audiences. We believe that many are not in possession of reliable facts and figures to prove that extra resources are tied up in maintaining excessive military forces. Consequently the briefings will be concise, readable and in a form useful for our audiences' educational, lobbying or campaigning purposes…".
A programme of intended briefings was described. For example, the first would be —
"The triumph of unilateralism theme: the unilateralist initiatives of former President Gorbachev broke the log-jam in East/West relations and were a decisive fact in ending the Cold War but Western militarism is losing the peace."
Others were entitled: "Militarism or disarmament? Challenging the West's technological arms race", "NATO's Military Supremacy—What is it for?", "Western hypocrisy on arms conversion", and so on. A total of six such briefing papers were issued between the end of 1992 and the end of 1995 after which no further funding was available. After publication of each briefing a public seminar or similar event was held.
8. Although, as I understand it, there has been no significant activity since the end of 1995, the last briefing note, in Appendix E, set out a basis for "a possible future briefing series". That was prepared after the Charity Commissioners' decision. In appendix E an attempt was made to address criticisms of the one-sided nature of the earlier briefings:
"The main text will consist of two contrasting analyses, one person offering a common security perspective and another a realist military security perspective. If the analysts were to be of similar ability, then over time and across regions it may become evident which analytical approach is proving superior in terms of seeing the dangers of military adventurism and proposing a path to peace."
As I understand Dr Southwood's explanations, the term "realist military security" is used to describe current policies relating to military security in the West. The term "common security" is used to describe his alternative, which in an earlier paper he described thus:
"Alternatively the UK can play a leading role, with the other main arms producing countries, of reining in the arms race and focusing on a new international security regime that puts, as its highest priority, the resolution of conflict through assistance in the areas of economic and social development."
9. The 1994 Declaration of Trust purports to establish a "charity" called "Project on Demilitarisation". The purposes of the trust are given as follows:
"3.1 The advancement of the education of the public in the subject of militarism and disarmament and related fields by all charitable means including the promotion improvement and development for the public benefit of research into this subject and the publication of the useful results thereof.
3.2 The general purposes of such charitable bodies or for such other purposes as shall be exclusively charitable as the trustees may from time to time decide."
The Trust Deed was professionally drafted, and the powers of the trustees and the other provisions are appropriate for a charitable trust.
The Commissioner's decision
10. The Commissioners gave a full statement of their reasons for rejecting the application for registration. The Commissioners summarised their understanding of the relevant principles derived from the authorities. They considered that it was appropriate to look at the papers published by Prodem in order to resolve possible ambiguities in the Trust Deed itself. They noted the two specific aims set out in the background paper and discussed them in the light of certain quoted passages from the briefing papers. They concluded as follows:
"Overall, the evidence suggested that Prodem has set out to advocate a certain line of policy. The style of the Briefings was propagandist, assuming that demilitarisation and disarmament were desirable and presenting arguments to support that view. Although there were occasional representations of views contrary to the prevailing message of the researchers, no serious attempt to analyse and discuss the issues had been made.
The Commissioners concluded that the research was not objective but that the evidence suggested the organisation was set up to promote, rather than test, a particular hypothesis. On the evidence, the requirement of equipping the person being educated with neutral information had not been fulfilled and Prodem was not charitable on that ground.
Moreover, given the several references in Prodem's submission to the institution's duty to address demilitarisation from an irenical perspective, it seemed that it was attempting to create a certain climate of opinion through its works. On the evidence of the briefings, it was even arguable that Prodem was actually attempting to promote pacifism. In either case, this would amount to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial