R (on the application of Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15

• Plaintiff wanted to run a TV advert arguing against cruelty to animals, with the aim of stopping testing on animals.

• The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, an informal body that monitors adverts for commercial broadcasters, didn’t give clearing to the advert since political broadcasting is banned under the Communications Act.

• HL held that Plaintiff’s article 10 right had NOT been violated, since the policy served by the act was justified as necessary in a democratic society and therefore compatible with ECHR. 

Lord Bingham

• The justification for the policy is to prevent political pressure being applied and debate dominated by wealthy groups with bad aims e.g. anti-abortion groups, pro-gun groups etc.

• He says that the reason we need this in TV/radio and not other mediums is that they have a more immediate, powerful effect.

• The blanket ban is no more than is necessary - there is no other practicable means of limiting exposure to TV, e.g. a rationing system (note this as an example of making judges politicised: Bingham is having to discuss policy alternatives and se if there is a less intrusive one to art 10 than the current policy).