R (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The statutory ban on political advertising on television and radio was compatible with freedom of expression.
Facts
Animal Defenders International, a group campaigning against the use of animals, wanted to broadcast a television advertisement showing a chimpanzee in a cage as part of a campaign against the treatment of primates. The advertisement was refused under the Communications Act 2003, which banned political advertising on television and radio, including advertising by bodies whose objects were wholly or mainly political. The group argued that the ban breached its right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the ban was compatible with article 10. Lord Bingham said that the ban pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the democratic process from distortion by wealthy groups who could buy expensive broadcast advertising, ensuring a level playing field for political debate. Parliament had considered the issue carefully and was entitled to conclude that a complete ban was necessary, given the power and immediacy of broadcasting and the difficulty of drawing workable lines. The European Court of Human Rights, by a narrow majority, upheld the ban in Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (2013), giving weight to the careful parliamentary consideration.
Related cases on civil liberties: expression, assembly, privacy and police powers
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
