Animal Defenders International v. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15
Court: House of Lords
Facts: The appellant, Animal Defenders International, launched a campaign that included a television advertisement submitted to the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC). However, BACC declined to clear the advert, stating that its transmission would breach the prohibition on political advertising set out in Section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003. The appellant sought a declaration of incompatibility for Section 321(2) under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), arguing that it was incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to freedom of political expression. The High Court refused to make a declaration of incompatibility.
Issue: Whether Section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003 is compatible with Article 10 of the ECHR regarding political advertising.
Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, ruling that Section 321(2) is compatible with Article 10 ECHR. The restriction on political advertising is justified to protect against the risks of partiality and to prevent wealthier political parties from monopolizing advertising.
Key Judicial Statement: Lord Bingham of Cornhill: "The power under Section 4 to make a declaration of incompatibility is a discretionary power... hypothetical examples of ways in which it may be incompatible with a Convention right should not suffice." Baroness Hale: “Our task is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it develops over time, no more and no less... The purpose of a declaration of incompatibility is to warn Government and Parliament that, in our view, the United Kingdom is in breach of its international obligations.”
💡Leveluplaw: This case highlights the balance between political expression and the need to regulate political advertising to ensure fairness in democratic processes. The decision underscores the discretionary nature of declarations of incompatibility under the HRA, reflecting differing perspectives among judges regarding the scope of these powers and the relationship between domestic and international law. Lord Bingham and Lady Hale presented contrasting views on whether such declarations should focus on domestic rights or align more strictly with international obligations.