R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1994 |
| Date | 09 February 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Laws
Local government - statutory powers - ban on stag hunting unlawful
A local authority had acted in excess of its statutory powers in banning stag hunting over its land under section 120(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972. Councillors' moral objections to hunting were not a relevant consideration in a decision under the section.
Mr Justice Laws so held in the Queen's Bench Division granting an application by William Charles Fewings, the master of the Quantock staghounds, William Stewart Leyland, chairman of the hunt's executive committee, and Richard Down, huntsman, for judicial review of the decision of Somerset County Council on August 4, 1993 banning the hunting of deer with hounds on the council's land at Over Stowey Customs Common.
Section 120 of the 1972 Act provides: "(1) For the purposes of … (b) the benefit, improvement, or development of their area, a principal council may acquire by agreement any land, whether situated inside or outside their area."
Mr Robert Carnwath, QC and Mr David Holgate for the applicants; Mr Michael Supperstone, QC and Mr Philip Sales for the council.
MR JUSTICE LAWS said it was quite clear that the council's ban on hunting was passed entirely or at least in very large measure, because the majority of those voting for it were deeply opposed to the practice of deer hunting on ethical grounds.
Over Stowey Customs Common was the only land belonging to the council where deer hunting was not allowed. It had been appropriated in 1974 for amenity purposes under section 122 of the 1972 Act. The purpose of the appropriation was that specified in section 120(1)(b): "the benefit, improvement or development of their area".
The case involved a single issue of principle: was the subjective opinion of the majority of councillors voting, that deer hunting was morally repulsive, a consideration which at law the council was entitled to regard as relevant?
The county solicitor in advising the council had taken the view that it was but he had not at any stage drawn the members' attention to the source of their putative statutory power to ban hunting. It followed that if the ban was lawful it was more by good luck than judgment.
Without passing any stern criticism of the council's solicitor, it was important, at least where a sensitive ethical issue arose, that the lawyers advising the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nature Island Investment Company Ltd Appellant v Marpins Telecoms and Broadcasting Ltd ((in Receivership)) Respondent [ECSC]
...body, does not enjoy unfettered discretion in the making of its decisions. InR. v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings et al [1995] 1 All ER 5137 Laws J quoted with approval the following passage from Administrative Law by Sir William Wade Q.C., 6th edition: "The powers of public autho......
- R v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte British Association of Shooting and Conservation Ltd
-
Timothy Charles Harris and Mrs. Angelika Harris v Broads Authority
... ... , which included representatives not only of County and District Councils but also the Water Authority, Harbour ... of local authorities including Norfolk County Council, Suffolk County Council, North Norfolk District Council, ... the hearing Laws J (as he then was) stated in R v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 All ER 514 , at ... ...
- R v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty ex parte Scott