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
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
- 2006
[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.
R V H M ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER EX PARTE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE AND OTHERS
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (NICE VERSION) ART 49
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (NICE VERSION) ART 28
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 11
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
England and Wales--1543-
[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.
R V H M ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER EX PARTE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE AND OTHERS
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (NICE VERSION) ART 49
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (NICE VERSION) ART 28
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 11
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
England and Wales--1543-