HUNTING BAN CHALLENGE FROM COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE IS REJECTED BY THE LAW LORDS

Country Life

The hunting ban challenge from the Countryside Alliance has been rejected by Law Lords. The Countryside Alliance had argued that the ban on hunting with hounds contravened human rights and put up to 8,000 livelihoods at risk.

Law Lords ruled unanimously in favour of the ban, and also dismissed a similar appeal relating to Scotland.

The ban, which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales, was passed by government in 2004 using the Parliament Act to overturn opposition in the Lords.

Law Lords rejected the argument from the Countryside Alliance, saying that the democratic process risked being subverted if opponents of the ban won in the courts but not in Parliament.

Lord Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice, headed the panel. He said: 'The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.'

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said: 'We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe. The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare.'

The Countryside Alliance will now appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over the Hunting Act, following the rejection of their challenge by the Law Lords. The Countryside Alliance maintains that up to 8,000 livelihoods are now at risk as a result of the ban.

Read More Here

FOX HUNTING IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT

The Times

The latest challenge to the ban on hunting with dogs, was dismissed by the law lords yesterday when they ruled that the Hunting Act does not contravene human rights.

The highest court in the land rejected an appeal in which the pro-hunt lobby claimed that the Parliament Act, used to force through the Hunting Act, was unconstitutional.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill and four other law lords dismissed a second challenge by the Countryside Alliance and other campaigners against the Hunting Act.

The same panel also dismissed an appeal from the Scottish courts by Brian Friend and Jeremy Whaley, both members of the Union of Country Sports Workers.

They claimed that the ban, introduced in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals Act, is an infringement of their human rights.

Lord Bingham, senior law lord and a former Lord Chief Justice, said in his ruling: “Fox hunting in this country is an emotive and divisive subject. For some it is an activity deeply embedded in the tradition, life and culture of the countryside, richly portrayed in art and literature, a highly cherished, skilful, healthy and useful form of communal outdoor exercise.

“Others find the pursuit of a small animal across the countryside until it is caught and destroyed by hounds, to be abhorrent.”

He said that the House of Lords had never given its consent to the Hunting Act but that the law lords were a judicial committee who had to give their views without reference to their personal sympathies.

The Countryside Alliance, along with various individuals, claimed at a hearing last month that the Act – which prohibits foxhunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales – violates the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolve around the meet and the chase.

Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs, the law lords were told. Others would lose businesses and the commercial “good-will” attached to them.

The Hunting Act 2004 must “be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation”, Lord Bingham said.

He added: “The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.”

In the Scottish case, Lord Hope, giving the leading ruling, said that there was “adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that foxhunting inflicted pain on the fox and that there was an adequate and proper basis on which it could make the judgment that the infliction of such pain in such circumstances constituted cruelty”.

Read More Here

HUNTING BAN NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS OR EU LAW

The Times

Regina (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another Regina (Derwin and Others) v Same

Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Judgment November 28, 2007

The prohibition of hunting wild animals with dogs and hare coursing imposed by the Hunting Act 2004 was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or inconsistent with the treaty establishing the European Union.

The House of Lords so held when dismissing appeals by:

(i) Countryside Alliance, Donald Summers-gill, Lesley Joan Drage, Roger Bigland, Colin Dayment, Kim Gooding, Joseph Cowen, William Jones, Richard May, Giles Bradshaw and Jason Vickery, the human rights claimants, and

(ii) Francis Derwin, Shane Flavin, Diana Johnson, Susan Lanigan-O’Keeffe, Viscount Hughes Le Hardy de Beaulieu, Gil Jose de Queiroz de Mendia, Barbara Rich, Marion Knoche, Kevin Lamacraft and Brian Divilly, the EC claimants,

from the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Buxton) ( The Times June 30, 2006; [2007] QB 305), affirming the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Moses), ( The Times August 3, 2005) which dismissed judicial review claims against the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

(i) by the human rights claimants for declaratory relief that the 2004 Act was incompatible with articles 8, 11, 14 of, and article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(ii) by the EC claimants, seeking to quash the 2004 Act, alternatively for a declaration that it was inconsistent with article 28 EC (free movement of goods) and article 49 EC (freedom to provide and to receive services) of the EC Treaty.

Mr Richard Gordon, QC, for the human rights claimants; Mr David Anderson, QC and Ms Marie Demetriou for the EC claimants; Mr Philip Sales, QC and Mr Jason Coppel for the respondents; Mr Rabinder Singh, QC and Ms Kate Cook for the RSPCA intervening by written submissions.

LORD BINGHAM said that the purpose of article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, his home and correspondence, was to protect the individual against intrusion by state agents, unless for good reason, into the private sphere where individuals expected to be left alone to conduct their personal affairs and live their personal lives as they chose.

Fox-hunting was a very public activity, carried out in daylight with considerable colour and noise, a spectacle often attracting onlookers’ attention.

Analogies could not be drawn with Strasbourg cases relating to private life and personal autonomy or cultural lifestyle, use of the home and loss of livelihood. The human rights claims could not be brought within the scope of article 8 under those heads.

His Lordship would not treat article 11, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, as inapplicable: if people only assembled to act in a certain way and that activity was prohibited, the effect in reality was to restrict their right to assemble.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 was applicable to the complaints of claimants who suffered loss of control over their possessions.

His Lordship rejected their article 14 complaint, of discrimination in being subject to adverse treatment as compared with nonhunters on the ground of their “other status”. He could not link that treatment to any claimant’s personal characteristic which could meaningfully be described as status.

The EC claimants, relying on article 28, argued that the hunting ban impeded the free movement of goods within the prohibition as interpreted in Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (Case 8/74) ([1974] ECR 837) and was not a selling arrangement within the exception recognised in Keck and Mithouard (Case C-267/91 and C-268/91) ([1993] ECR I-6097).

His Lordship thought the Act did not engage article 28 but, that was not clear on the authorities. If the question had to be decidid, for the House to give judgment, a definitive ruling from the ECJ would be required.

The EC claimants secondly relied on article 49, prohibiting restrictions on freedom to provide services for nationals established in other EU states. He considered that the hunting ban would engage that article, but the matter was not acte clair and a reference would be required if its resolution were necessary to the House’s decision.

His Lordship agreed with the statement in Adams v Scottish Ministers (2004 SC 665), in relation to Scottish legislation, that the prevention of cruelty to animals had long fallen within the constitutional responsibility of the legislature. Enactment of each statute involved the making of a moral judgment; the latest Act was a further step in a long sequence promoting animal welfare.

Having traced that sequence through the stream of 19th and 20th century British legislation, he said that it might be doubted whether any country had done more than the United Kingdom to try to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals.

He referred to noncontentious facts that foxes were a pest, requiring regular culling, traditionally by hunting with hounds, shooting or snaring; that before the 2004 Act those killed by hunting represented roughly 10 per cent of annual deaths from all causes.

Contrary to the appellants’ submission, the courts below accurately expressed the Act’s aim as a composite one of preventing or reducing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport was unethical. The appellants argued that the ban did not reduce the overall level of suffering as compared with the situation before the Act.

His Lordship found it impossible to construct any precise calculus of relative suffering. A body of reputable professional opinion accepted that hunting imposed a degree of suffering. But the degree was unknowable, as was the future incidence of foxes wounded by inexpert shooting and left to die.

The conditions by which otherwise impermissible interferences with articles 8 and 11 rights might be justified were met: the interference was in accordance with the law; it was directed to “the protection of ... morals": see articles 8.2 and 11.2, that was the aim of the Act.

Many did not consider there was a pressing, or any social need for the ban but the majority of the country’s elected representatives had decided otherwise.

The degree of respect to be shown to the considered judgment of a democratic assembly would vary according to subject matter and circumstances but this was preeminently a case where respect should be shown to what the House of Commons had decided.

The democratic process was liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieved through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.

No less far-reaching measure could have achieved the statutory object. The Act was proportionate to the end it sought to achieve.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 was not to impair the state’s right to enforce such laws as it deemed necessary to control the use of property in the general interest. The Act was such a law and respect should be paid to the recent, closely considered judgment of a democratic assembly. No ground was shown for disturbing it.

Article 30 EC, qualifying article 28, and article 46 EC, applicable to article 49 by article 55, provided for justifying an impugned measure on public policy grounds, subject to strict principles: see Omega Spielhallen- und Auton-matenaustellungs GmbH v Oberbürgermeister-in der Bundesstadt Bonn (Case C-36/02) ([2004] ECR I-9609, paragraphs 28-31).

His Lordship approached that issue on the assumption that articles 28 and 49 applied and that the measure was one of social reform, not directed to the regulation of commercial activity, of which any impediment to the intra-Community provision of goods and services was a minor and unintended consequence, and which bore more hardly on those within the United Kingdom than on those outside it.

In Omega the German authorities considered, and the ECJ accepted, that exploitation of games involving the simulated killing of human beings infringed a fundamental value, human dignity, enshrined in the national constitution.

Here, Parliament considered that the real killing of foxes, deer, hares and mink by way of recreation infringed a fundamental value expressed in numerous statutes and culminating in the Act.

The Act was justifiable in Community law; no ECJ ruling was necessary for the House to decide the appeal.

Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale and Lord Brown delivered opinions concurring in the result.

Solicitors: Clifford Chance LLP; Clifford Chance LLP; Treasury Solicitor and Solicitor, for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Mr Raymond Goodfellow Horsham; Edwards Duthie, East Ham.

Read More Here

BRITISH BAN ON HUNTING WITH DOGS STANDS

Associated Press

The image of Britons in scarlet coats galloping over fields as their dogs chase foxes is fixed in the popular imagination. But Britain's highest court ruled Wednesday that laws banning the hunts must stand.

Hunters had appealed two bans: one passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2002 and another, enacted in 2004, applying to England and Wales. The laws banned using dogs to hunt mammals.

Hunting supporters argued that the laws violated the rights of people whose livelihoods depended on hunting.

But on Wednesday, the Law Lords — a committee of the House of Lords that acts as Britain's highest court — dismissed the appeals.

The 2004 law banning hunting in England and Wales must "be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation," Lord Bingham said in the unanimous ruling.

"The democratic process is liable to be subverted," Bingham wrote, if hunting supporters achieve in court what they failed to achieve in Parliament.

The House of Commons forced the English and Welsh ban into law after the legislation was repeatedly defeated in the House of Lords.

In rejecting the associated appeal against the Scottish ban, Lord Hope wrote that "there was adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that fox hunting inflicted pain on the fox," and was therefore cruel.

Opponents of hunting say the fox dies an excruciating death as it is ripped apart by the pack of dogs.

But the Countryside Alliance, a group of hunting advocates, argues that between 6,000 and 8,000 people eventually will lose their jobs because of the ban — and many will also lose their homes.

In 2004, hunt supporters organized marches against the legislation, and eight hunt supporters invaded the House of Commons in 2004 to protest.

Under the Hunting Act, dogs can be used to chase a fox into open ground but not to harm it. Instead, the fox can be shot. Because of that, the legislation has not entirely banned the colorful spectacle of horse-mounted hunters setting out in pursuit of game.

Read More Here

BRITAIN'S HIGHEST COURT REJECTS FOX HUNTING APPEAL

AFP

Britain's highest court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by countryside groups against the government's ban on hunting with dogs, ruling that the law does not contravene human rights.

It was the second time the Law Lords had been asked to rule on the lawfulness of the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox and deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales following similar laws in Scotland.

Campaigners have tried to have the act declared invalid and claimed it would devastate rural communities and local industries supporting hunts, such as kennels for hounds and farriers who ensure hunt horses are well-shod.

But in a unanimous decision, one of the three judges, Thomas Bingham, said the act "must be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation".

"The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament," he said.

A separate appeal against the Scottish legislation, which has a separate but broadly similar legal system to England and Wales, was also thrown out.

Scotland's most senior judge, James Hope, said there was "adequate factual information" to indicate that fox hunting inflicted pain on the animal and was therefore cruel.

Under both laws, dogs cannot be used to pursue and kill quarry, although they can still follow a scent and flush out foxes and other quarry, which can then be killed either by a bird of prey or shot if only two dogs are involved.

Read More Here

LAW LORDS REJECT HUNT CHALLENGE

BBC

The Countryside Alliance has lost its legal challenge to overturn the ban on hunting with hounds.
The pressure group argued that the ban contravened human rights and put thousands of jobs at risk.

The law was passed by the government in 2004 using the Parliament Act to overturn opposition in the Lords.

But the Law Lords unanimously ruled in favour of the ban. The Law Lords have also dismissed a similar appeal relating to Scotland.

The ban prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales.

The Countryside Alliance argued that it violated the human rights of thousands of people and was putting between six and eight thousand jobs at risk.

But the Law Lords rejected the argument ruling the democratic process risked being subverted if opponents of the ban won in the courts but not in Parliament.

The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, headed the panel. He accepted that fox hunting is very important to the traditions and life of the countryside.

But he ruled: "The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament."

It's not the first time the Countryside Alliance has suffered a legal setback.

Two years ago the Lords rejected an appeal made on constitutional grounds. The Alliance argued the ban was illegal because it had been originally passed using the Parliament Act without the consent of the House of Lords.

The Law Lords also refused an appeal brought by members of the Union of Country Sports Workers through the Scottish courts.

The Countryside Alliance is now planning to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The group's chief executive Simon Hart said: "To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated.

"We believe that the European courts will support this view."

Read More Here

LORDS

The Guardian

The Law Lords threw out the latest challenges to the ban on hunting with dogs when they ruled that the Hunting Act did not contravene any human rights.

The House of Lords, the highest court in the land, rejected an appeal two years ago in which the pro-hunt lobby claimed that the Parliament Act, used to force through the Hunting Act, was unconstitutional.

On Wednesday Lords Bingham, Hope, Rodger and Brown and Baroness Hale dismissed a second challenge by the Countryside Alliance and other campaigners to the lawfulness of the Hunting Act.

The same panel of Law Lords also dismissed an appeal from the Scottish courts by Brian Friend and Jeremy Whaley, both members of the Union of Country Sports Workers.

They also claimed that the ban, introduced in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals Act, is an infringement of their human rights.

Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice who headed the panel of Law Lords, said in his ruling: "Fox hunting in this country is an emotive and divisive subject. For some it is an activity deeply embedded in the tradition, life and culture of the countryside, richly portrayed in art and literature, a highly cherished, skilful, healthy and useful form of communal outdoor exercise.

"Others find the pursuit of a small animal across the countryside until it is caught and destroyed by hounds to be abhorrent."

He said the House of Lords had never given its consent to the Hunting Act but they were a judicial committee who had to give their views without reference to their personal sympathies.

The Countryside Alliance, along with various individuals, claimed at a hearing last month that the Act - which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales - violates the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolve around the meet and the chase.

Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs, the Law Lords were told. Others would lose businesses and the commercial "goodwill" attached to them.

Read More Here

PRO-HUNT LOBBY TO KEEP ON FIGHTING

The Cornishman

A legal bid to prove the ban on hunting with dogs contravenes the human rights of people in the countryside has been thrown out by the Law Lords.

Last night campaigners vowed to take their case to the European Courts despite the unanimous verdict that the Hunting Act 2004 must stand to prevent animal cruelty.

But Westcountry hunts last night insisted the welfare of wildlife had worsened since the Act became law.

The House of Lords, the highest court in the land, yesterday dismissed the challenge by the Countryside Alliance and other campaigners to the lawfulness of the Hunting Act. It is the second time an appeal against the act has been rejected.

Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice who headed the panel of Law Lords, admitted in his ruling that fox hunting was an "emotive and divisive subject".

"For some it is an activity deeply embedded in the tradition, life and culture of the countryside, richly portrayed in art and literature, a highly cherished, skilful, healthy and useful form of communal outdoor exercise."

Others find the pursuit of a small animal across the countryside until it is caught and destroyed by hounds to be abhorrent."

He said the House of Lords had never given its consent to the Hunting Act but they were a judicial committee who had to give their views without reference to their personal sympathies.

Lord Hope, who was also on the panel, added that a history of laws preventing cruelty "is deeply rooted in public policy".

But the Countryside Alliance claimed the Act - which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales - violated the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolved around the meet and the chase.

Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs, the Law Lords were told. Others would lose businesses and the commercial "goodwill" attached to them.

Last night Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg.

He said: "We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe. The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare. To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the Government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated.

"We believe that the European Courts will support this view, even if the Law Lords were unable to."

And John Lucas, spokesman for Tiverton Staghounds, told the WMN: "Animal welfare has certainly not improved since the hunting ban came in because we all know that two hounds can flush out whatever quarry it is and there are a lot more wild animals being shot indiscriminately along with other methods of control being used.

"The Hunting Act was not about animal welfare but prejudice and bigotry towards the countryside.

"I am sure if they delved deep enough and looked into the countryside they will see animal welfare has taken a step backwards."

In the ruling, Lord Bingham said the law had been drawn up and passed in line with the constitution and should not be undone by an interest group. The democratic process was liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieved through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.

Earlier John Rolls, director of animal welfare promotion for the RSPCA, which was given permission to give its views to the House of Lords hearing, said: "The ability to make animals suffer for sport is not a human right, and we are glad to see that the Law Lords have unanimously decided to dismiss these appeals. We see this as a total vindication of our long-held view that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable in modern Britain."

The Law Lords also dismissed arguments that the Hunting Act infringed European trade laws.

In the Scottish case, Lord Hope, giving the leading ruling said: "There was adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that fox hunting inflicted pain on the fox and that there was an adequate and proper basis on which it could make the judgment that the infliction of such pain in such circumstances constituted cruelty".

The Scottish case had been brought by Brian Friend, an associate member of the Union of Country Sports Workers. He raised concerns about the "the rights of minorities within the majority of the indigenous British population". He added: "I argued that I and my family should have the protection of the same human rights as are guaranteed, to gypsies, Saami Indians, Eskimos, aborigines, ethnic minorities, criminals, terrorists, asylum seekers and to indigenous peoples everywhere and that the Human Rights Act must apply to everyone, not just selected groups."

Read More Here

COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE TAKES ITS BATTLE FOR HUNTING TO THE EUROPEAN COURT

Horse & Hound

The House of Lords has dismissed appeals by the Countryside Alliance (CA) and other supporters of hunting which claimed the acts banning hunting with hounds in England, Wales and Scotland breached human rights and free trade laws.

But the CA has announced it will now take its appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Five Law Lords heard the cases in October and yesterday returned their verdict — that the appeals should be dismissed.

Simon Hart, chief executive of the CA, said: "We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe.

"The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare.

"To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the Government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated. We believe that the European Courts will support this view, even if the Law Lords were unable to."

The three test cases were brought by the CA and Union of Country Sports Workers member Brian Friend.

The CA cases strove to prove that the England and Wales Hunting Act infringes the European Convention on Human Rights and is contrary to EU law on free trade.

Mr Friend's appeal was of a personal nature, claiming that the Scottish Hunting Act had infringed his human rights.

The RSPCA was also invited to give submissions at the hearings.

John Rolls, of the RSPCA, said: "We are glad to see that the Law Lords have unanimously decided to dismiss these appeals.

"We see this as a total vindication of our long-held view that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable in modern Britain."

Read More Here

LAW LORDS RULE HUNTING BAN IS 'LAWFUL'

RSPCA

The House of Lords has today dismissed appeals by the Countryside Alliance and other hunting supporters who argued the hunting ban breaches Human Rights and European law.

The Hunting Act 2004 must “be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation,” said Lord Bingham, the senior Law Lord, in the leading opinion - after a unanimous ruling by the five Law Lords who heard the case last month.

He went on to say “The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.”

This case provided a rare opportunity for animal welfare legislation to be considered by the highest court in the land. The RSPCA was granted permission to intervene in the proceedings and presented written submissions to the court.

John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, said: “The ability to make animals suffer for sport is not a human right, and we are glad to see that the Law Lords have unanimously decided to dismiss these appeals. We see this as a total vindication of our long-held view that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable in modern Britain”.

All five Law Lords Law Lords who heard the case (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) decided the appeals should be dismissed.

Lord Hope commented: “The history of legislation in the United Kingdom for the prevention of cruelty to animals leaves no room for doubt that in this country*the subject is deeply rooted in public policy. It has been for a long time regarded as one of the fundamental interests of society about which Parliament is expected, when the need arises, to legislate.”

Lord Bingham viewed the Hunting Act as a measure of social reform and that Parliament considered that the killing of foxes, deer, hares and mink “by way of recreation infringed a fundamental value expressed in numerous statutes and culminating in the 2004 (Hunting) Act”.

After the judgment, the RSPCA’s John Rolls said: “It is time for people who have spent millions of pounds challenging this law to accept it and move on. Cruelty-free hunting, which does not involve chasing a wild animal and where the pageantry, social recreation, jobs, horses and hounds can be retained, is the obvious way forward, and something the RSPCA has always suggested.”

The legal challenge brought by the Countryside Alliance and other hunting supporters had previously been dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Ten of the country’s leading judges have now dismissed these pro-hunt claims since the Hunting Act became law in 2004.

The Law Lords also today unanimously dismissed a related case involving a challenge to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

Lord Hope, giving the leading speech in that case, agreed “there was adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that foxhunting inflicted pain on the fox and that there was an adequate and proper basis on which it could make the judgement that the infliction of such pain in such circumstances constituted cruelty”.

Read More Here