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

This Court held that the Conservative and Unionist Party was not a "public authority" for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 when it conducted its 2022 leadership election, and therefore was not subject to the Convention rights in that context. The court analysed the constitutional process in three conceptually distinct stages (party leader election; advice by the incumbent Prime Minister to the Sovereign; appointment by the Sovereign) and concluded that only the latter two stages involve public functions. The private nature of the act of electing a party leader was determinative: important or predictable public consequences do not convert a private act into a public act under section 6(5). The court distinguished regulatory or delegated public functions (for example as in Datafin and similar cases) from the internal, associative decision-making of a political party and emphasised the value of party autonomy. Ancillary points: the court did not decide the broader question of justiciability of the prerogative in this context and noted procedural guidance about permission to apply for judicial review under CPR 52.8.

The claimant, Tortoise Media, sought disclosure of anonymised membership and process-related information about the Conservative Party's 2022 leadership election. After investigative steps (including testing membership applications), Tortoise wrote on 17 August 2022 requesting nine items of anonymised data and explanations about the Party's membership and safeguards. The Party replied on 26 August 2022 declining to provide the information and stating that it was not a public body and that the leadership election was a private matter under its constitution.

Procedural posture: permission to bring judicial review was refused on the papers and at oral hearing in the High Court (Lang J and Fordham J, the latter reported at [2023] EWHC 3088 (Admin)). Stuart-Smith LJ subsequently granted permission to apply for judicial review and the substantive claim was retained for determination by this Court.

The central legal issue was whether the Party was a "public authority" under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of the decision to elect its leader, such that Article 10 ECHR (alleged positive obligation to provide information to the media) could be invoked. The court considered domestic authorities on amenability to judicial review and public functions (including Datafin, YL, Aston Cantlow, Beer and others) and relevant constitutional material (Cabinet Manual and the convention governing appointment of the Prime Minister). The court set out three conceptually distinct stages in the constitutional sequence: (1) election of the party leader; (2) the outgoing Prime Minister's advice to the Sovereign about who can command the confidence of the House of Commons; and (3) appointment of the Prime Minister by the Sovereign. Stages 2 and 3 concern public functions but the court concluded stage 1 remained a private act of an unincorporated association governed by its constitution. The court rejected the claimant's reliance on Datafin: Datafin concerned a regulatory, quasi-public body with statutory underpinnings and an obligation to act judicially, features absent here. The court emphasised the importance of allowing political parties autonomy to govern internal affairs absent a clear legal rule to the contrary. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The court also added a postscript on procedural options under CPR 52.8 where permission has been refused in the High Court.

The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The Court concluded that the Conservative Party was not exercising a public function when it conducted its 2022 leadership election, so section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply and no Convention-based positive obligation to disclose the requested information arose. The court treated the constitutional process as comprising three distinct stages and held that only the advice to, and appointment by, the Sovereign involved public functions; the internal election by a voluntary political party remained a private act. The court distinguished regulatory/public-function authorities such as in Datafin and emphasised political party autonomy. The broader issue of justiciability of prerogative advice was not finally decided.

Permission to bring judicial review was refused on the papers by Lang J on 19 July 2023 and, after renewal, refused at oral hearing by Fordham J (High Court, Administrative Court) with reserved judgment ([2023] EWHC 3088 (Admin)). Stuart-Smith LJ (on the papers) thereafter granted permission to apply for judicial review and directed that the substantive hearing be heard by the Court of Appeal (order sealed 31 July 2024). This Court retained and heard the substantive claim and dismissed it on 23 May 2025.