The long-running Judicial Review case brought by an antivivisection group against the Home Office has finally ended, with the Court of Appeal ruling against the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) on the final two counts. Nine other counts had previously been rejected by the High Court.
By the Home Office. Severity limits for experimental protocols: BUAV claimed that they are not appropriately determined and assigned. This is a rather technical issue relating to the way the severity of procedures is assessed and reported, which is already under review. Severity limits are a shorthand terminology not affecting the care the animals are given. This was upheld by the High Court in 2007, but rejected by the Appeal Court today
By BUAV. Post-operative care for animals: BUAV claimed that in requiring only general performance criteria are met rather than requiring specific staffing levels and working practices, the Home Office does not properly implement relevant parts of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This was rejected by the High Court in 2007, and BUAV’s appeal against the ruling was rejected today.
Astonishingly, and shamelessly, BUAV is still trying to claim victory:
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 …’
BUAV press release, 23 April 2008
I bet you are, Michelle. Not least that BUAV has to pay £60,000 and more in legal costs. BUAV supporters should be asking how their donations are being used.
<Wrap up...>
