A three-judge panel of the UK Upper Tribunal has ruled in a recent case that blanket secrecy surrounding animal testing licences is incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case in question is Cruelty Free International v Information Commissioner and the Home Office.
The case, issued at court by Cruelty Free International, concerned Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), which prohibits Home Office ministers and officials from disclosing information given to them in confidence by animal researchers. This includes detailed applications for licences to conduct animal testing. The Home Office assumes everything is given in confidence, apart from the short summaries which legally have to be published, although it has also beena rgued that these summaries often omit crucial information.
Under Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act, a legal ban on disclosure of information in other legislation, such as for Section 24 of ASPA, means that the public body in question cannot publish anything, regardless of whether there is an overriding public interest in the information being available. It was Cruelty Free International’s arguement that Section 24 is contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. This concept had been challenegd in a previous case which had held that governments can be forced to publish information in certain circumstances, such as situations where the information is publicly important and the requester acts as a public watchdog, such as the media or a responsible non-government organisation, which is what Cruelty Free International would be classed as. The government obviously argued against this approach.
The Upper Tribunal however agreed with the position of Cruelty Free International, and held that the information should be disclosed on the grounds of public interest. Whilst is it hoped that this will now set a new precedent when it comes to disclosing information around animal testing and the granting of testing licences by the government, it is anticipated that the government will seek to appeal this ruling and the case will therefore be trasnferred higher up the judicial chain to a higher level fo court. In any event, this case shows that progress is being made to create better transparency around animal testing and the processes involved, and I for one hope that this is a sign of the positive changes to come. It also helps to show how the courts are starting to consider animal testing as a public interest, which should hopefully mean that more cases like this can be discussed in court and more decisions made that help to promote better transparency within the animal testing industry.
