R (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 1677 (Admin) |
| Date | 29 July 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT
Before Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Moses
Constitutional law - Act of Parliament - validity - Act within rational proportionate competence of Parliament
It was within the rational, proportionate and democratic competence of Parliament to enact the Hunting Act 2004.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in dismissing claims for judicial review by (i) the Countryside Alliance and ten other claimants, (ii) Frances Derwin and eight other claimants and (iii) Brian Friend and Hugh Thomas, challenging the defendants, the Attorney-General and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the lawfulness and integrity of the 2004 Act.
Mr Richard Gordon, QC, Mr Richard Lissack, QC, Mr Nicholas Bowen and Mr Robert-Jan Temmink for the first claimants; Mr David Anderson, QC, and Ms Marie Demetriou for the second claimants; Mr Brian Friend and Mr Hugh Thomas, in person; Mr Philip Sales, Mr Jason Coppel and Mr Tom de la Mare for the defendants; Mr Rabinder Singh, QC, and Ms Kate Cook for the RSPCA, as an intervener.
LORD JUSTICE MAY, giving the judgment of the court, said that broadly speaking, the claimants' challenges were on the ground that the 2004 Act was a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market freedoms protected by European law, and an unjust interference with economic rights.
The first set of claimants said that articles 8, right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, 11, freedom of assembly and association, 14, prohibition of discrimination, and article 1 of the First Protocol, protection of property, of the European Convention on Human Rights were applicable and infringed.
The only right which the 2004 Act significantly interfered with was the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under article 1 of the First Protocol, but that interference mainly, if not entirely, constituted control of use, not deprivation.
The second set of claimants contended that their fundamental freedoms of movement, protected by the EC Treaty had been impeded by the 2004 Act. That Act, they submitted, could not be justified as a proportionate measure designed to achieve a legitimate objective.
They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...adding some observations of his own, at [82]-[86], on the distinction between goodwill and a right to future income. 90 In R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General [2008] 1 AC 719, at [21], Lord Bingham of Cornhill also referred to the distinction between goodwill and a right to future i......
-
Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd (No 2)
...... of a person whose personal data is held by another person on a computer, which is usually regarded as being ...His contact with the MDU, and that from others about him, gave rise to the opening (at least since 1991) ... binding on us, of the Master of the Rolls in R(Countryside Alliance) v Attorney-General [2006] 3 WLR 1017 , ......
-
R. (ex rel. Countryside Alliance et al.) v. United Kingdom (Attorney General), (2007) 378 N.R. 1 (HL)
...with the European Convention or the EC Treaty . They prevailed before the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (May, L.J., and Moses J.: [2005] EWHC 1677 (Admin.); [2006] EuLR 178) and also, on very similar but not identical grounds, before the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke, M.R., Brooke an......
-
R (Ghai) v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council
...engaging Article 8 raised in Pretty, with more public activities not attracting its protection, was at the forefront in R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General [2007] UKHL 52; [2008] 1 AC 719. Lord Bingham said no analogy could be drawn between the “very personal and private concerns”......