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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll