Animal rights group's court bid

Anti-vivisection campaigners are seeking a High Court ruling that laws to protect laboratory animals are not being properly enforced.

They claim brain-damaged monkeys at Cambridge University were not given the care to which they were entitled.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is asking for permission to challenge lab practices.

In a statement, Cambridge University said there was no evidence to support the BUAV's allegations.

BUAV say during a 10-month undercover investigation officials discovered monkeys which had had the tops of their skulls sawn off.

'Minimise suffering'

They claimed strokes had been induced, and the animals left unattended for up to 15 hours. Some monkeys were found dead in the morning and others were in a poor condition, they said.

The BUAV says its finding contradict the view that animals are protected under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

However, when challenged, ministers denied there was anything irregular, the BUAV alleges.

BUAV lawyers argue there has been a failure to keep animal suffering to a minimum and to immediately put down animals suffering beyond an agreed level.

On Monday the group is asking High Court judge Mr Justice Stanley Burton to grant permission for it to challenge the legality of current lab practices in judicial review proceedings.

'Good' animal welfare

In a statement, a Cambridge University spokesman said a Home Office inspection report in 1993 confirmed there was no evidence to support the BUAV's allegations on non-human primate research.

"In February 2003, we welcomed the Home Office Chief Inspector's report called 'Aspects of non-human primate research at Cambridge University' as confirmation that there was no evidence to support the allegations made by the BUAV.

"The report confirmed that the welfare of animals used in research at Cambridge is of the utmost importance, that good science and good animal welfare go hand in hand, and that the value and importance of the science here should be acknowledged.

"There are good ethical, scientific, legal and economic reasons for making sure that animals are looked after to the highest possible standards and as few used as possible," he said.