Search
A three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal has given judgment in Cruelty Free International v Information Commissioner and the Home Office [2026] UKUT 328 (AAC), an important case concerning the domestic application of Article 10 ECHR as well as the application of precedent in human rights cases more broadly.
In 2023, the Home Office (“HO”) refused to provide Cruelty Free International (“CFI”) with certain information relating to animal testing. The Information Commissioner found that the HO was entitled to refuse CFI’s request, holding that the prohibition on disclosing such information within s.24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (“ASPA”), combined with s.44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”), created an absolute exemption to disclosure. CFI’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was refused.
The issues on appeal to the Upper Tribunal included whether the domestic application of Article 10 ECHR contained a right to receive information in limited circumstances (following the landmark Grand Chamber judgment in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary (2020) 71 EHRR 2), and, if so, whether s.24 ASPA breached CFI’s Article 10 ECHR rights.
Prior to this case, domestic courts had rejected the notion that the right to receive information applies in domestic law – most notably, in the Upper Tribunal’s earlier decision of Moss v Information Commissioner [2020] UKUT 242 (AAC). This case relied upon comments made in two Supreme Court cases pre-dating Magyar – which expressed doubts as to whether Article 10 ECHR contained such a right – in order to hold that lower courts were bound to reject the existence of such a right.
In this case, the Upper Tribunal held that the relevant comments of the Supreme Court were obiter, and that lower courts were not bound by them. It therefore departed from its earlier decision in Moss, and set out important guidance for the circumstances in which lower courts are bound by higher courts not to follow relevant Strasbourg authority.
The Upper Tribunal went on to apply the Magyar-derived right to receive information, finding that the blanket ban on disclosure contained within s.24 ASPA was a disproportionate interference with CFI’s Article 10 ECHR rights. On the issue of remedies, however, the Upper Tribunal held that it was not possible to use s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to interpret s.24 ASPA in a Convention-compatible manner. As the Upper Tribunal is unable to make declarations of incompatibility, the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was ultimately upheld.
Reuben Andrews appeared for and made oral submissions on behalf of CFI, alongside Peter Lockley of 11KBW. Reuben and Peter are led by Brendan McGurk KC.