The Upper Tribunal found that an organisation’s limited Article 10 right to receive information had been violated—but still refused its information appeal when remaking the decision.
The information request
Cruelty Free International sought information about licences granted by the Home Office for scientific testing involving animals. The Home Office relied on section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 together with the statutory prohibition in section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
The Article 10 finding
The Upper Tribunal held that information-rights tribunals can recognise the limited right to receive information inherent in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It found that the organisation’s right had been violated in the circumstances and that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law on that issue.
Why disclosure was still refused
Finding a Convention-rights violation did not give the Upper Tribunal power to rewrite incompatible primary legislation beyond a permissible interpretation. It concluded that the statutory prohibition could not be read compatibly with Article 10 and that the Upper Tribunal could not make a declaration of incompatibility.
The earlier decision was set aside, but the information appeal was refused again when remade for those different reasons.
What the outcome demonstrates
A successful legal argument does not always produce the practical remedy sought. The available remedy depends upon the powers of the deciding body and the statutory barrier involved. It is therefore essential to distinguish the identified legal error from the final disclosure outcome.
Black Sheep evidence lesson
Map an information-rights case in layers: the information requested, the FOIA exemption, the underlying statutory prohibition, the Convention right engaged and the remedy each forum can actually grant. This prevents a finding of legal error from being presented inaccurately as an order for disclosure.