Tortoise Media Limited, R (on the application of) v Conservative and Unionist Party

The claim sought judicial review of the Conservative Party's refusal to provide information in response to nine questions about the 2022 leadership contest, advancing that the party's mid-term selection of a new leader (while it held a Commons majority) was a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b) and judicial review. The claimant relied on the Magyar Helsinki public-interest criteria and Article 10 ECHR.

The court held the Conservative Party's internal selection of its leader was distinct in substance from the Crown's prerogative appointment of a Prime Minister and was not a function of a public nature for either HRA or judicial-review purposes. The judge rejected the argument that the party effectively exercised the prerogative or that Miller v Prime Minister required review of the party process. Because the public-function premise failed, Magyar and Article 10 did not apply to make the information "State-held" and the claim lacked viability.

The court refused relief, declined indemnity costs and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's aggregated standard-basis costs for the acknowledgment of service and the permission hearing.

Background and parties. The claimant, Tortoise Media Limited, sought information from the Conservative and Unionist Party about its 2022 leadership election. The Party refused in a letter dated 26 August 2022. Tortoise applied for judicial review, asserting (i) that the Party’s mid-term selection of a leader while it held a Commons majority constituted a public function under HRA s.6(3)(b) and for judicial review, (ii) that the refusal engaged a positive Article 10 obligation to disclose "State-held" information under the Magyar Helsinki criteria, and (iii) that the refusal involved public-law error and failure to take account of relevant considerations.

Relief sought. Disclosure of information in response to nine questions; declaratory and/or judicial review relief asserting Article 10 rights and public-law reviewability of the refusal.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether the Conservative Party’s internal selection process was a "JR Public Function" making it amenable to judicial review.
• Whether the selection was an "HRA Public Function" such that the Party was subject to HRA duties (hybrid public authority) and the requested information was "State-held" under the Magyar criteria so as to attract Article 10 obligations.
• Whether the refusal contained public-law error or an unjustified interference with Article 10.

Reasoning and decision. The judge accepted that analysis must focus on the specific function in issue, but concluded the Party’s internal selection of its leader was a political-party function distinct in substance from the exercise of the Crown’s prerogative power to appoint a Prime Minister. The Party did not exercise the prerogative, nor could that internal function sensibly be vested in a statutory public body; the appointment of the Prime Minister remains an act of the Sovereign on advice and is subject to parliamentary accountability after appointment. The Miller line of authority did not support treating the Party’s internal selection as a public function. Because the public-function premise failed, the Magyar criteria and Article 10 pathway did not arise. Permission was refused as the claim lacked viability. The court made a costs order against the claimant in respect of the acknowledgment of service and the hearing, summarily assessed at £30,000 on the standard basis.

Wider observations. The judge recognised Magyar as an important Strasbourg authority and accepted arguability that hybrid public authorities could fall within "State-held information" principles, but held that question could not be reached here because the public-function threshold was not met. The judgment emphasised the distinction between internal party autonomy and external adoption by the Crown and the role of Parliamentary mechanisms as constitutional safeguards.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the Conservative Party's internal selection of its leader mid-term while holding a Commons majority was not a function of a public nature for the purposes of either judicial review or the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b). Consequently the refusal to disclose the information did not engage Article 10 via the Magyar criteria and the judicial-review claim lacked viability. The court therefore refused relief and made a costs order against the claimant for specified permission-stage items.