header-logo header-logo

17 January 2008 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

The hunt goes on

Is there any hope for campaigners who want to see the ban on hunting with dogs overthrown? Neil Parpworth reports

The Hunting Act 2004 (HuA 2004) is the most recent piece of legislation to be made pursuant to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 procedure, ie without the consent of the House of Lords. The legal validity of HuA 2004 was unsuccessfully challenged by those who want to see the ban on hunting with hounds overthrown (see R (Jackson) v A-G [2005] UKHL 56, [2005] 4 All ER 1253).

Accordingly, the pro-hunting fraternity changed its line of attack by seeking to argue that HuA 2004 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) or inconsistent with the EC Treaty. Its arguments failed to convince either the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal (see R (on the application of Countryside Alliance) v A-G [2005] EWHC 1677 (Admin), [2005] All ER (D) 482 (Jul) and [2006] EWCA Civ 817, [2006] All ER (D) 264 (Jun)) respectively).

A unanimous House of Lords

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll