Greenpeace is taking its fight against the now defunct-Charities Commission to the Supreme Court, despite winning its charity case in the Court of Appeal.
The environmental lobby group’s lawyer Davey Salmon is questioning two aspects of the Court of Appeal’s November ruling, including the extent to which political advocacy is allowed.
In November, Justices Rhys Harrison, Lyn Stevens and Doug White set aside the then-Charities Commission’s 2010 decision to decline the lobbyists’ charity status.
Greenpeace says whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal, the bid for charity status will still need to be reconsidered.
The Court of Appeal judges referred the Greenpeace application back to the Charities Commission’s replacement – the Department of Internal Affairs and the Charities Registration Board for reconsideration.
In its finding, the Court of Appeal said the organisation’s political advocacy needs to be “truly ancillary” to its principal charitable objectives.
The lobby group’s political involvement was central to the then-Charities Commission’s refusal to grant the application.
Back in 2010, the commission found:
- Two of Greenpeace’s objectives – promoting “peace” and “disarmament” – were political, not charitable.
- Greenpeace was involved in illegal activities, such as trespassing; therefore it was not maintained exclusively for charitable purposes as illegal purposes are not charitable.
In its decision, the commission also referred to a number of mission statements on the Greenpeace website, including:
- We are actively campaigning for international disarmament.
- We believe greater peace, greater security, greater safety is possible. Reaching out across national boundaries Greenpeace is working with citizens and political leaders around the world to make this happen.
In order to be registered as a charity an organisation must be established and maintained exclusively for charitable purposes. Political purposes are not charitable purposes.
An organisation may, however, be registered as a charity if it has a political purpose so long as the political purpose is ancillary to the charitable purposes of the organisation and is not an independent purpose.
A date has yet to be set for the Supreme Court hearing.
This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags
- Trump's debate quip about China 'using US as a piggybank' wrong, out of date
- MARKET CLOSE: NZ shares drop, Orion Health and Xero lead index lower while Air NZ bounces
- Editor's Insight: How the candidates fared in the first presidential debate
- AngelEquity launches with three investment offers
- Receiver close to Atmospheric sale
Most listened to
- No knockout blows in first presidential debate, says NBR's Nevil Gibson
- Intueri's problems raise questions for the board, says Martin Watson of the Shareholders Association
- ANZ's Philip Borkin and NBR's Jason Walls on what's next for the kiwi dollar on Currency Talk
- AngelEquity's Bill Murphy on why his platform won't cater for retail investors
- Spark exec Jason Paris defends his company's honour after it tops ComCom's most-complained-about list
- FMA lawyer Justin Smith counters the Goldman Sachs defence