Key principle on Home Office assessment of animal suffering upheld at Court of Appeal

  View the press release       View Q&A PDF

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has had its main argument vindicated in the Court of Appeal over the way the Home Office classifies the seriousness of experiments on animals.

Background

In July 2007 the BUAV won a great victory in a Judicial Review at the High Court over the way experiments are classified. The Home Office subsequently appealed, which meant BUAV having to fight our case again at the Appeal Court.

The case originally came about after an undercover investigation at Cambridge University involving invasive procedures like removing parts of the brains of some marmosets to induce strokes. Under government classifications, experiments that cause a major departure from an animal's normal state of health and wellbeing are categorised as 'substantial', but this was labelled only as 'moderate'. We believe it's common sense to say that these experiments were far more serious than 'moderate' and therefore wanted to challenge the way the Home Office issues licences in general.

We also had grave concerns regarding the after care of these animals as records show marmosets were left for up to 15 hours very shortly after invasive brain surgery with all-too-predictable consequences.

The Home Office appeal ruling - April 2008

Disappointingly, the court decided that the judge had gone too far in the part of his ruling which related to the severity of the Cambridge experiments. However, the main point of our argument was upheld. That was the way the Home Office claimed these marmosets didn't suffer in a 'substantial' way just because there were other lab animals who suffered even more (this is known as a "relative approach"). Even in relation to Cambridge, the court did not rule it was right to say the brain surgery was only 'moderate'. It preferred to leave this judgement to the Home Office. Its approach was similar with the aftercare of the monkeys. Again the court didn't say the care arrangements were adequate and we continue to maintain that, based on the extensive evidence before court, they clearly were not.

The BUAV's Chief Executive, Michelle Thew, said:

"I am very pleased that the court has upheld our main point of principle relating to the way animal suffering should be categorised and bringing this important case will hopefully mean fewer animals will suffer in the most severe animal experiments. I am disappointed with some of the finer details of the ruling - the case does, however, begin to lift the lid on how the Government regulates animal experiments".

What does this mean for Lab animals in the future?

The Court of Appeal decided that the "relative approach" is wrong, and that you can't say some experiments don't involve 'substantial' suffering just because there are others which cause more suffering. This is really important because it should mean that the Home Office changes its approach to licensing animal experiments. We hope that if more experiments are now correctly termed 'substantial' it should mean fewer of these licenses are granted, which could mean thousands of animals are saved from appalling pain and suffering. That's if the Home Office operates the law correctly - we will do our utmost to ensure that it does.

In conclusion

The BUAV strongly believe that cases like this begin to lift the lid on how the government regulates animal experiments, which is especially important when the suffering of laboratory animals is hidden from public view.

In this case, some of the finer legal arguments have muddied the main issue, which is about the Home Office underplaying the suffering of animals, and that's the point of principle that we won.

Ending animal experiments is not an easy task but the BUAV will continue until the day we consign the cruelty of animal research to the history books.