Ban on hunting with dogs
Violation of fundamental human rights
The ban on hunting with dogs violates the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolve around the meet and the chase, the House of Lords heard recently. Richard Gordon, QC, began the latest legal challenge to the 2004 Hunting Act by saying: “There are many for whom hunting is a core part of their lives and the rural communities in which they live."
He added: “The social network of many individuals is made up entirely of those who hunt. The ban jeopardises their social life, working life and family life.”
Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, he said, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs. Others could lose businesses and the commercial “goodwill” attached to them.
Mr Gordon contended that the ban, introduced to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals, was a “disproportionate” interference with the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
These included the right under Article 8 to a private and family life including, he argued, a way of life of one’s own choosing and the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association under Article 11. Two years ago, the House of Lords rejected an appeal in which the pro-hunt lobby claimed that the Parliament Act, used to force through the Hunting Act, was unconstitutional.
Now campaigners are asking Lord Bingham, Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lord Brown and Baroness Hale to overrule a Court of Appeal judgment that dismissed their second challenge to the Hunting Act, in which they invoked human rights laws and European trade laws.
The Countryside Alliance, along with various individuals, say that the Act which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales should be declared unlawful.
Need more information?
Please email or contact us with your enquiry.
 |
This article is for your general information and use only and is not intended to address your particular requirements. This article is based on our understanding as at the 11 October 2007. The content of the article should not be relied upon in its entirety. Although endeavours have been made to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No individual or company should act upon such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of their particular situation. Any references made to the Pre-Budget Report may be subject to the Finance Bill becoming law. |