Foot-and-mouth in the courts
Series: New Law Journal ; 151(7004) 19 October 2001, 1515-1516(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Considers the implications of "Westerhall Farm v Scottish Ministers", the first legal challenge to foot and mouth slaughter policy in Scotland. "Westerhall Farm" petitioned the notification that all their livestock would be slaughtered on the following grounds: the decision was contrary to Council Directive 85/11/EEC and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6; the slaughter policy was inflexible and a disproportionate invasion of their property rights; and the procedure used to implement the policy were contrary to Scottish administrative law. It was found that the slaughter policy was justifiable on all counts.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64739 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 115433-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Considers the implications of "Westerhall Farm v Scottish Ministers", the first legal challenge to foot and mouth slaughter policy in Scotland. "Westerhall Farm" petitioned the notification that all their livestock would be slaughtered on the following grounds: the decision was contrary to Council Directive 85/11/EEC and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6; the slaughter policy was inflexible and a disproportionate invasion of their property rights; and the procedure used to implement the policy were contrary to Scottish administrative law. It was found that the slaughter policy was justifiable on all counts.