Image from Google Jackets

R v (1) H.M. Attorney General (2) The Secretary for State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ex p Countryside Alliance and others - and - R v H M Attorney General, The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, RSPCA (intervener) ex p Frances Derwin and others

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 817, 23 June 2006. Considers whether it came within the UK parliament's competence to enact the Hunting Act 2004 and whether the Act had infringed EC law or the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. The appeals concerned the prohibition by the Act of the hunting with dogs of certain wild mammals. C contended that there had been infringements of their human rights in respect of Arts 8, 11 and Art 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention and that a total ban had not been required since alternative proposals would have been a limited and proportionate response to the objections raised about hunting. D argued that the ban infringed two of the free movement provisions in the EC Treaty. "Held": appeals dismissed. Enacting the Act had been within the rational, proportionate and democratic competence of parliament and the Act did not infringe EC law or the Convention.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 134217-2001

[2006] EWCA Civ 817, 23 June 2006. Considers whether it came within the UK parliament's competence to enact the Hunting Act 2004 and whether the Act had infringed EC law or the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. The appeals concerned the prohibition by the Act of the hunting with dogs of certain wild mammals. C contended that there had been infringements of their human rights in respect of Arts 8, 11 and Art 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention and that a total ban had not been required since alternative proposals would have been a limited and proportionate response to the objections raised about hunting. D argued that the ban infringed two of the free movement provisions in the EC Treaty. "Held": appeals dismissed. Enacting the Act had been within the rational, proportionate and democratic competence of parliament and the Act did not infringe EC law or the Convention.