We brought landmark Freedom of Information case
The secrecy which surrounds information on the use of animals in science in the UK has been ruled unlawful by the Upper Tribunal in a landmark case.
We brought the case which was heard by a specially-convened three-judge panel in London’s Upper Tribunal, the equivalent of the High Court in the tribunal system which decides Freedom of Information Act appeals.
The case 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. Crucially, 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 but 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.
We argued that Section 24 is contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, following a European Court of Human Rights case called Magyar, forces governments to publish information in certain circumstances. These include where the information is publicly important and the requester acts as a public watchdog, such as the media or a responsible NGO like CFI.
Our request focused on the Home Office’s evaluation of applications for licences to conduct animal experiments for cosmetics. For 30 years, the Home Office had refused licences for this purpose, on the basis that the pain suffered by the animals was not justified for products regarded as unimportant. Before granting a licence, the Home Secretary must be satisfied that the benefits of experiments outweigh the suffering to the animals (the harm:benefit test).
However, the Home Secretary secretly started granting cosmetics licences again in 2019. We wanted to know why the assessment of harms and benefits had changed. Public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to animal testing for cosmetics, in particular. Still, though, the Home Office refused to disclose the evaluations, using Section 24 as justification.
The Upper Tribunal has now decided that we met the Magyar tests, and the Home Office could not rely on the exceptions to Article 10. Crucially, the Home Office accepted as long as 12 years ago that there was no justification for retaining Section 24 in its present form in an era of much greater governmental transparency. Yet it has still done nothing to remedy the situation.
Importantly, legitimate interests such as confidentiality and safety are already fully protected by other Freedom of Information Act exemptions.
The Upper Tribunal is limited in the options it has to solve this problem. It decided against one option. We now expect the case to go to the Court of Appeal for final resolution.
We believe that the ruling could set a precedent for all Freedom of Information cases with an overriding public interest in disclosure, not just those related to animal testing.
Our Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs, Dr Emma Grange, said: ”This is a really important ruling. The public has a right to know the basis on which licences for animal experiments are granted. It should not be a cosy club between researchers and regulators. The harm:benefit test is essentially an ethical assessment, and public and parliamentarians should be able to influence how it is applied in practice – far too many licences are granted which few would regard as justified on any basis.
“In addition, how the Home Office reaches scientific judgements should be open to scrutiny, because there is increasing acceptance that many animal experiments are unreliable. This is of the first importance for human health.”
Published on 1 September, 2026.
