## Facts

- Animal Defenders International (ADI), an animal rights organization, sought to broadcast an advertisement about primate abuse in entertainment.
- The proposed advertisement was rejected under the Communications Act 2003, which imposed strict prohibitions on political advertising on TV and radio.
- ADI argued that the ban violated its right to freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The Culture Secretary contended that the ban was justified to preserve the neutrality of broadcast media and prevent wealthy individuals or groups from disproportionately influencing public debate.
- Alternative methods for political advocacy—such as print media and online platforms—were accessible but were believed by ADI to reach smaller audiences.

## Issues

1. Whether the prohibition on political advertising under the Communications Act 2003 violated Article 10 ECHR freedom of expression.
2. Whether the restriction was established by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 10(2).
3. Whether the ban unjustifiably limited political speech, particularly that of less well-funded groups.

## Decision

- The House of Lords upheld the ban, finding it compatible with Article 10 ECHR.
- The Court applied a three-part proportionality test: the restriction was established by law, pursued legitimate aims (preventing financial distortion of politics and maintaining broadcast impartiality), and was necessary in a democratic society.
- The risk of wealthy interests dominating broadcast debate and marginalizing underfunded groups was a justification for the restriction.
- The availability of free election airtime and other political speech channels was considered relevant, supporting the necessity of the ban.

## Legal Principles

- Article 10 ECHR protects freedom of expression but allows restrictions under Article 10(2) if prescribed by law, serving a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society.
- Limitations on political speech may be justified to protect democratic processes and the integrity of public debate.
- Courts use a proportionality test to evaluate whether speech restrictions comply with Article 10.
- There is a recognized distinction between broadcast media (TV and radio) and other forms of communication under legal standards governing speech.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords concluded that the statutory ban on political advertising under the Communications Act 2003 was a legitimate and proportionate restriction on Article 10 rights, aimed at safeguarding democratic fairness in broadcasting, and thus did not violate freedom of expression under the ECHR.

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