The legalities of the case are complex. But the story is straightforward enough. The BUAV requested actual information contained in five project licences for which abstracts were published on the Home Office website in December 2004. The Home Office supplied some further information relating to the five licences beyond that contained in the published extracts. The BUAV challenged this, seeking greater amounts of information than the Home Office was prepared to release. The challenge went initially through the complaints procedure at the Home Office, subsequently through the Information Commissioner’s Office, and then to an Information Tribunal, before ending up in the High Court.

The case hinged on a number of confidentiality clauses, both in the Freedom of Information Act itself, and in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA).

The High Court judge sided with the Home Office in his judgement on 25 April 2008. The judge noted that those who seek licences from the Home Office for animal research will often be required to submit a great deal of detailed information beforehand which is sensitive or confidential for a variety of reasons. The judge ruled that the various exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, together with the so-called confidentiality clause in ASPA, meant that the Home Office should not be required release the additional information.

However, the story is unlikely to be over. The BUAV has announced that it intends to appeal this judgement in a press release on its website. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that there was an intrinsic conflict between the licensing system which was introduced under an Act which is now more than 20 years old, and the modern requirement for greater freedom of information. According to the judge, these considerations would appear to point to a need for matters to be sorted out at the time the application is made. He suggested that there should be clear criteria for identifying those categories of information where applicants should have ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy/confidentiality’. The judge gave some examples of some categories of information which should not normally be regarded as confidential.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that the matter will be for legislators to decide in due course. He pointed out that when the laws are next considered, there may be a need to repeal or amend certain sections to allow greater release of information. In principle, RDS supports these views. We are in favour of greater openness, as long as we can be satisfied that it operates in a way which protects genuinely sensitive, commercial or confidential information.