R (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney General and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Master of the Rolls,the Master of the Rolls |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 1096,[2006] EWCA Civ 817 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C1/2005/2071, C1/2005/2072, C1/2005/2071(B) , C1/2005/2072(A) , C1/2005/2083,Case No: C1/2005/2071 (Y) |
| Date | 23 June 2006 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1096
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMIINISTRATIVE COURT
(LORD JUSTICE MAY, MR JUSTICE MOSES)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
The Master of The Rolls
Lord Justice Brooke,
Vice President, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and
Lord Justice Buxton
The parties were excused attendance when the judgment ([2006] EWCA Civ 817) was handed down by Lord Justice Brooke on 23 rd June.
STATEMENT ON HANDING DOWN JUDGMENT
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: These are two appeals and one application for permission to appeal that I heard with the Master of the Rolls and Buxton LJ in March.
For the reasons set out in the judgment of the court, copies of which have been made available to the parties, the appeals of the Human Rights appellants and of the European Community appellants are dismissed. The Human Rights appellants and the European Community appellants will each pay the respondents the costs of and occasioned by their respective appeals, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
The application of Mr Friend and Mr Thomas for permission to appeal is refused.
So far as the applications by the Human Rights appellants and the European Community appellants for permission to appeal to the House of Lords are concerned, we have received written submissions from the parties which we have had the opportunity to consider. We refuse permission to appeal to the House of Lords for both groups of appellants. So far as the Human Rights appellants are concerned, we have a very clear view that it must be a matter for the House itself to decide whether it is willing to entertain their appeal. So far as the European Community appellants are concerned, we have decided against them on the issue of justification, in which we consider that the law is clear and the issue is one for the judgment and assessment of the national court.
It may be of assistance to the press if I point out that, although we have not published a separate summary, the judgment contains at paragraphs 180 to 193 a summary of what we have decided in the full text of the judgment.
Order:
C1/2005 /2071 – Appeal dismissed.
C1/2005 /2072 – Appeal dismissed.
C1/2005 /2071(B) – Applications for permission to rely on further evidence granted.
C1/2005 /2071(C) – Applications for permission to rely on further evidence granted.
C1/2005 /2071(Y) – Applications for permission for renewal of part refusal of permission to appeal allowed.
C1/2005 /2071(A) – Applications for permission to rely on further evidence granted.
C1/2005 /2083 – Application for permission to appeal with appeal to follow if permission is granted – permission refused.
[2006] EWCA Civ 817
[2005] EWHC 1677
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Master of The Rolls
Lord Justice Brooke and
Lord Justice Buxton
Richard Gordon QC (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for the 1st
David Anderson QC and Marie Demetriou(instructed byClifford Chance) for the 2nd Brian Friend and Hugh Thomas (in Person)
Philip Sales; Jason Coppel (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor and DEFRA) for the Respondents
Rabinder Singh QC and Kate Cook (instructed by RSPCA Legal Department) for the Intervener
This is the judgment of the court, dismissing both appeals and refusing permission to appeal to Messrs Friend and Thomas.
INDEX
Preliminary §§ 1–21
–4 These appeals
The Hunting Act 2004
The Parliamentary history
The nature of hunting: background
–21 A summary of the parties' cases
Hunting in some more detail §§ 22–40
–29 The various quarries
–40 The reasons for and effect of hunting
31–34 Pest control
35–37 Sport and recreation
38 Hunting as a way of life
39–40 Hunting as an industry
The facts on which these appeals proceed §§ 41–51
The policy objectives of the Hunting Act §§52–63
–54 Introduction
The correct approach to legislative policy
–63 Our findings as to the policy objectives.
The HR appeal §§ 64–125
–66 Preliminary: the Human Rights Act
–70 The HR' case
–105 Article 8
74–86 Autonomy
87–92 Culture/community
93 Loss of livelihood/home
94–97 Use of home
98–99 The Divisional Court's approach
100–105 Our Conclusions on Article 8
–107 Article 11
–115 Article 1 of the First Protocol
–125 Justification and proportionality
The EC Appeal §§ 126–172
–129 Introduction
–146 Article 28
–157 Article 49
–172 Justification and proportionality in Community terms
The application for permission to appeal of Messrs Friend and Thomas §§ 173–179
Summary §§ 180–193
Preliminary
These appeals
This case concerns an issue that has been prominent, and highly controversial, in English public life for many years, and which reached its climax in the much-debated Hunting Act 2004 that (put shortly) prohibited the hunting with dogs of certain wild mammals. There are before the court two appeals from a single judgment of the Divisional Court [2005] EWHC 1677; [2006] EuLR 178 and an application for permission to appeal. We deal with the latter at the end of this judgment. In the first, "human rights", appeal the are the Countryside Alliance and a number of individuals. In the second, "European Community", appeal the are all individuals. They are identified in Appendix I to this judgment, where we reproduce the description of those Appellants and of some of the witnesses that was given in §§ 31–55 of the judgment of the Divisional Court. The Respondents took issue with some of the claims made by those persons about their situation and the effect on them of the Hunting Act. The Appendix nonetheless serves conveniently to identify the parties and what they say about their own particular cases.
There is a very substantial overlap between the two appeals. The facts asserted by the one group of are accepted and relied on by the other group of. The benefit of a successful appeal in the one case would redound to the in the other case. However, it became clear before us, rather more so than it had before the Divisional Court, that the contentions in the two appeals differ from each other in some respects, not all of which are matters of detail. In what follows we will address the appeals as a single case, whilst taking care where appropriate to identify the differences between them. We adopt the practice of the Divisional Court of speaking summarily of the HR appeal and the EC appeal.
A striking feature of the appeals is the burdensome nature of their presentation. The Divisional Court commented in strong terms on the weight of material that had been placed before it in an attempt to explicate the arguments: see §57 of its judgment. Despite the Divisional Court's very full account of that material, which the parties on specific enquiry by this court only criticised in marginal respects, the 32 files of evidence that were before the court below have only been reduced in number to 15, to which must be added the three volumes of material and six files of authorities filed by Mr Friend in support of his application for permission to appeal. It is right to say that most of the material emanates from the. Moreover, the comparative modesty that has been exercised by the parties to the appeal in respect of evidential material has not been matched in the citation of authorities. No effective attempt had been made to provide a consolidated index to these authorities, whether alphabetical or chronological, to ease our way through the maze of cases that were cited. Leaving Mr Friend aside, there are now before the court 18 files of authorities, containing the truly extraordinary number of 189 items. In addition, counsel between them filed 164 pages of skeleton argument, and addressed the court for the better part of five days.
All this means that, like the Divisional Court, our first duty is to distinguish the wood from the trees. In dealing with the background issues (which we suspect will be well-known to most or all of those who persevere with this judgment) we will largely rely on the work of the Divisional Court. Anyone who thinks that he needs to know more can find it in the full and impressive judgment of that court.
The Hunting Act 2004
It will be convenient first to set out the summary of the Hunting Act given by the Divisional Court. No criticism was made of the accuracy of this summary, though some reference was made to further parts of the Act.
5. Section 1 of the Hunting Act provides that a person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog unless his hunting is exempt. Classes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. (ex rel. Countryside Alliance et al.) v. United Kingdom (Attorney General), (2007) 378 N.R. 1 (HL)
...not incompatible with the European Convention or the EC Treaty. The complainants appealed. The Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2006] EWCA Civ. 817; [2007] Q.B. 305, dismissed the appeal. The claimants appealed again. The House of Lords dismissed both appeals. Civil Rights - Topic 9......
-
R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)
...8 is not engaged merely by the loss of (or the loss of opportunity of) employment, see R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney-General [2006] EWCA Civ 817, [2006] 3 WLR 1017 at paras. 100 – 103 per Sir Anthony Clarke MR. There is no realistic prospect of success on this ground and I would ref......
-
Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd (No 2)
...or complains of. For that conclusion I would respectfully adopt the judgment, binding on us, of the Master of the Rolls in R(Countryside Alliance) v Attorney-General [2006] 3 WLR 1017, especially at §§ 100–103. Mr Howe indicated that in the light of that authority, not reported until well ......
-
DPP v Wright
...human rights and European law objections. Appeals against this judgment to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords failed ([2006] EWCA Civ 817; [2007] UK HL 52), the main lines of this court's reasoning being upheld. 3 The 2004 Act was enacted by being passed in the House of Commons alo......