Court ruling on Conservative leadership election

In a landmark judgment delivered on 23 May 2025, the Court of Appeal addressed the controversial case of Tortoise Media Limited v Conservative and Unionist Party. This case focused on a request for disclosure of information regarding the Conservative Party's leadership election held in 2022, particularly following the resignation of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The case has garnered considerable public interest, particularly concerning the interpretation of what constitutes public functions within the legal framework of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

Tortoise Media, a prominent news organisation, sought access to crucial information relating to the party's leadership election. They argued that the Conservative Party was exercising a public function during this process, thereby making it subject to judicial review under the HRA. The core question before the court revolved around whether the actions taken by the Conservative Party in conducting the leadership election could be classified as a public function.

The context of this case highlights a complex interaction between a political party's operations and the need for public accountability. The court's deliberations raised vital considerations regarding transparency in the internal processes of political parties. During the proceedings, Tortoise Media asserted that there were significant concerns surrounding the party's membership structure and demographics, emphasising allegations related to foreign nationals and non-residents participating in the election. They maintained that access to this information was essential for the media to effectively fulfil its role in ensuring public oversight.

In earlier hearings, Tortoise had applied to the High Court for judicial review after their request for information was denied by the Conservative Party. However, both judges, Mr Justice Fordham and Lang J, ruled against Tortoise, asserting that the Conservative Party was not acting in a public capacity during the election. This led Tortoise to escalate the matter to the Court of Appeal.

Ultimately, the judges expressed empathy for Tortoise's objectives but unanimously determined that the Conservative Party’s leadership election did not amount to a public function as defined under section 6 of the HRA. Lord Justice Singh articulated that the nature of the election was private, governed by internal party rules rather than public law. The judges concluded that, despite the leadership election's significant impact on public governance, the act itself remained a private matter.

The ruling underscores the importance of delineating the boundaries between state functions and those of political parties. It reinforces the principle of party autonomy in determining the conduct of their internal affairs. This judgment sets a crucial precedent regarding the scope of public functions within human rights law, particularly in the context of political party operations.

This case ultimately highlights the ongoing discourse on transparency and accountability within the political arena. It also brings to light the challenges faced by journalists and media organisations in advocating for the public interest while navigating the complexities of political operations that largely fall outside public law's reach