Case study: Esotericism study group denied registration as CIO

The First-tier Tribunal has rejected an appeal against the Charity Commission’s refusal to register the Research Network for the Study of Esoteric Practices (RENSEP) as a CIO (Centore v Charity Commission for England and Wales). It was held that the organisation’s purpose had not been conclusively shown to be exclusively charitable and that it did not meet the public benefit test.

RENSEP’s stated object was “to advance the education of the public in general (and particularly amongst academics) in the subject of esotericism”. The proposed activities were supporting research, publication of materials, conferences, and the maintenance of records to support research. 

Defining esoterism presented difficulties; RENSEP referred to it as an “umbrella term” and explained that its use in the objects referred to “the broad category of belief systems that exist both within as well as independent of larger religious traditions and institutions”. It was distinguishable from other types of religious behaviour “through its focus on hidden or transcendent realities, on special or higher forms of knowledge, on non-ordinary experiences, on individualised forms of spirituality and spiritual growth, and on the efficacy of ritual.” It encompassed, but was not limited to, other belief systems such as hermetism, spiritualism, astrology, and paganism. 

The Tribunal considered that the term was ambiguous, without precise boundaries. As such, it was not possible to determine whether education in esotericism would meet the requirements of charitable status, including the public benefit test. It was held that  esotericism had not been established as ‘worthy of study,’ so as to be of educational value, nor was it shown that the study would be balanced or neutral.    

RENSEP argued that registration should be allowed as other institutions with purposes within the scope of esotericism have registered charity status. The Tribunal was not swayed by this ‘parity’ argument, holding that each decision on charitable status must turn on its own facts. A review of other registration decisions was not therefore relevant to the appeal. 

The Tribunal also referred to the Commission’s statutory objective of exercising its powers, including its registration power, so as to increase public trust and confidence in charities. This was said to be a ‘crucial consideration’ in rejecting the appeal.