Scottish burial reform and cremation society a trust

 Scottish Burial Reform and Cremation Society : a trust created for purpose of promoting cremation.
Was analogous to the maintenance of graveyards and therefore charitable.
2.4.1 Sport and recreational trusts?
 Promotion of fitness and good health may be charitable: IRC v McMullen (soccer in schools).
LAW4170 Trusts 21 Aaron Chisholm

 Recreational sport linked to education is a valid charitable purpose: Kearins – extra-curricular activities
are part and parcel of the joys of Uni.
 However, purely recreational trusts are not charitable: Chester (trust for breeding of racing pigeons).
o Horse show jumping is only recreational: Strathalbyn v Mayes .
o Anglican Trusts Corporation : camp for Anglican girl scouts wholly recreational.
2.4.2 Trusts for political purposes?
 There is no longer a blanket ban on charitable trusts for political purposes. Here the trust is arguably
created to promote political discussion and therefore a valid charitable purpose: Aid/Watch cf UK
position: McGovern .
o Agitating for change will be valid charitable purpose because of Australia’s constitutional system
of representative government: Aid/Watch per Majority .
o NB: Court in Aid/Watch decided this on the basis that AW was generating public debate about
the delivery of aid overseas, which is one of the four heads (relief of poverty!).
 DID NOT extent to any political debate, but still open to extend.

However, merely asserting one’s views (propaganda) will arguably not be for a charitable purpose:
Aid/Watch per Kiefel J .
o E.g. George Bernard Shaw’s trust, or a trust for holocaust deniers.
o Her Honour (dissent) thought that Aid/Watch was just a pressure group shouting their opinions.
 Also consider whether the proposed trust is actually in the public benefit? What are the ends trying to be
achieved and the means involved?
o Vicki’s example: a trust set up to advance Islam ok. A trust set up to lobby government to
introduce Sharia law re marriages – probably still ok (debate re religion). If trust wanted to do
this via a violent jihad (oh dear), then means probably not in public benefit.
 NB: Political trusts formerly thought to be invalid because, if the courts recognised people lobbying to
change the law, this means that the court must admit that the law is wrong or bad ( Dixon J , Royal North
Shore Hospital ).
o Further, how would a judge decide what is in the public benefit? Consider the East-West Link.
(3) Severance in mixed-purpose trusts
 Arguably the charitable trust will fail because of the inclusion of [words] in [Clause #] which create a
non-charitable purpose as well as a charitable purpose. At common law it is not possible to sever a
charitable purpose from non-charitable: Chichester v Simpson .
LAW4170 Trusts 22 Aaron Chisholm

 However, because this trust was set up in Victoria, s 7M Charities Act 1978 (Vic) will allow the Court to
sever [words] from [Clause #] and allow the trust clause to survive.