On 30 August, the Telegraph broke the story that the son of the founder of the Aspinall Foundation had been suspended in the course of the Charity Commission’s ongoing statutory inquiry into the Foundation and another related charity.
This article explores the background to the investigation, the Commission’s statutory power of suspension and the implications of its use.
The charities
There are two closely connected involved in this case: The Aspinall Foundation and The Howletts Wild Animal Trust. The charities operate closely and have two common trustees: Damian Aspinall and his daughter, Tansy Aspinall.
The Howletts Wild Animal Trust (Howletts) owns and operates two wildlife sanctuaries in Kent: Howletts Wild Animal Park and Port Lympne Hotel and Reserve. The charity is a zoological society with charitable purposes for the conservation and protection of endangered species, including both a breeding programme and an educational programme.
The Aspinall Foundation (the Foundation) is a charitable trust founded by John Aspinall in 1984, which describes itself as a charity that is “committed to returning rare and endangered animals back to their natural habitats”. The charity works closely with Howletts to relocate endangered animals back into their natural habitats around the world.
Since John Aspinall’s death in 2000, both charities have been led by his eldest son, Damian Aspinall, who (until his recent suspension) acted as Chair of Trustees for both charities.
The Statutory Inquiries
In December 2019, the Charity Commission began investigating Howletts due to “concerns about the charity’s management of conflicts of interests and a related-party transaction”. Subsequently, in July 2020, the Commission also began looking into the Foundation due to identical concerns relating to the governance and administration of that charity. On 31 March 2021, statutory inquiries were announced into both charities.
The official statements published by the Commission set out the basis of each statutory inquiry. In both cases, there were concerns about “the administration, governance and management” of the charity, in particular with regard to the management of conflicts of interest, and whether the trustees have complied with their duties. In relation to the Foundation, there was also an additional concern about unauthorised trustee benefits.
The Commission’s power to suspend a charity trustee
Launching a statutory inquiry into a charity (under s46 Charities Act 2011) opens up the Commission’s full arsenal of statutory powers, many of which are only available once a statutory inquiry has been launched. One such power is to suspend any charity trustee, officer, agent or employee of the charity while the Commission considers removing them from their position as such (s76(3)(a) Charities Act 2011).
The Commission’s statutory power of suspension is not often used and is only available if one of the following specific circumstances applies:
- There is or has been a failure to comply with an order or direction of the Commission.
- There is or has been a failure to remedy a breach set out in an Official Warning issued by the Commission.
- There is or has been any other misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the charity (including excessive remuneration of any persons).
- It is necessary or desirable to protect the property of the charity or to secure the proper application of the charity’s property for its charitable purposes.
The power to suspend a trustee is intended to be used pending consideration of whether to remove the person from their role within the charity. The initial maximum period of suspension is 12 months, but it can be extended to a maximum total period of 2 years.
The suspension of Damian Aspinall
According to the Telegraph, Damian Aspinall was suspended from both charities in December 2024 amid allegations that he used the Foundation’s funds to “pay for a cook, housekeeper and chauffeur at his family home”. Other allegations include that he used the Foundation’s funds to pay for club class flights and lease luxury cars for personal family trips.
The press articles state that the Commission has confirmed the suspension and has also confirmed that an interim manager was appointed to the Foundation to work alongside the charity trustees and oversee key decisions while the statutory inquiry continues (there was no appointment of an interim manager for Howletts).
It has been reported that the Commission took the decision to make use of its statutory powers following the discovery of “fresh issues of concern” that had arisen during the investigation towards the end of 2024.
Is disqualification likely?
It is relatively rare to see the Commission making use of its power to suspend charity trustees. Whilst we have seen a recent uptick in trustee disqualifications, these have not typically been prefaced by a period of suspension. It is common for trustee disqualifications to relate to unauthorised personal benefits, and it appears that this is the reason for the regulator’s concerns in this case (meaning that the statutory limb in use here is under s76(1)(a) and relates to misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the charity).
The decision to suspend pending investigation means that the Commission is “satisfied” that there is or has been misconduct or mismanagement by Damian Aspinall, as a result of which the Commission is considering whether to use its power of discretionary disqualification, but perhaps needs more time to investigate the allegations to assess whether the criteria for disqualification are met in this case. It also suggests a level of seriousness to the findings to justify suspension in order to protect the charity from any continued misconduct or mismanagement.
The high-profile nature of the charities and many of the people involved (including Carrie Johnson, who was appointed to a senior communications role in 2021) means that the story has attracted a significant amount of media attention. We have already seen from other recent high-profile charity investigations (e.g. the Captain Tom Foundation and Naomi Campbell’s charity, Fashion for Relief) that inquiries such as these are not rushed and that the Commission takes great care to conduct a thorough investigation before taking any decisions. However, a person’s profile and connections will not save them from disqualification when allegations are substantiated.
The misuse by a charity trustee of charity funds and assets for personal benefit (particularly when in a position of power and influence as the Chair of Trustees) is extremely serious from a regulatory perspective and if the statutory test for disqualification is met, then it is very likely a disqualification will follow.
It is a fundamentally important point of charity law that charity trustees should serve in a voluntary capacity for the public benefit and any breach of that duty is taken very seriously. Whilst the issue of personal benefit and conflicts of interest is notoriously complex and trustees often make innocent mistakes, any intentional or persistent breach of trust in this regard is highly likely, when uncovered, to result in the most serious consequences.
This article first appeared in Charity Finance Magazine, November 2025
Key Contacts
The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at February 2026.