House of Lords

Published March 17, 2008

Regina (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Speeches March 12, 2008

The prohibition on political advertising in broadcast media was necessary in a democratic society and not incompatible with the freedom of expression guaranteed by article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the claimant, Animal Defenders International, from the dismissal by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Ouseley) ([2007] HRLR 9; [2007] EMLR 158) of its application for judicial review.

Mr Michael Fordham, QC and Ms Shaheed Fatima for Animal Defenders; Mr David Pannick, QC and Mr Martin Chamberlain for the defendant, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

LORD BINGHAM said that the claimant sought a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 321 of the Communications Act 2003 was incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention, given effect by the 1998 Act, as imposing an unjustified restraint on the right to freedom of political expression.

The claimant was a nonprofit company whose aims included the suppression, by lawful means, of cruelty to animals, the alleviation of suffering, conservation and protection. It campaigned against the use of animals in commerce, science and leisure, seeking to achieve changes in law and public policy and to influence public and parliamentary opinion towards that end.

In 2005 it had launched a campaign entitled “My Mate’s a Primate” with the object of directing public attention towards the use of primates by humans and the threat presented by such use to their survival. It was to include newspaper advertising, direct mailshots and a television advertisement.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre had declined to clear the television advertisement on the ground that it would breach the prohibition on political advertising in section 321(2) of the 2003 Act.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones