Scots Law News
| Pages | 165-172 |
| Date | 01 May 2008 |
| Published date | 01 May 2008 |
| DOI | 10.3366/E1364980908000292 |
When the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 was first introduced into the Scottish Parliament, views were expressed that the legislation was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The decisions of the Inner House in
Friend, who represented himself, argued that the 2002 Act was contrary to Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as incompatible with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992, principle 22 (protecting the culture of indigenous peoples). The latter point was swiftly dealt with, as the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament does not require compliance with international obligations other than those incorporated into domestic law under European Community law or the ECHR.
Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR provide for freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of expression respectively. Friend argued (para 17) that
his belief in his right to hunt was at least of comparable importance to him as his religious beliefs. Indeed it was greater, for him, than it was for his church. The wearing of traditional hunting dress, which shows who is in charge of the hunt, was a visible expression of this part of the cultural life of the community.
The Lords rejected this argument on the basis that the right to hunt was not comparable to religious belief. In any event the legislation did not compel Friend to act in a manner contrary to his beliefs, or to refrain from dressing as he wishedOn Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life), the Lords noted that the concept of “private life” in Convention jurisprudence did not encompass the rights in question, nor were hunters “an ethnic group whose customs and practices in relation to hunting were entitled to protection in the same way as those of minority ethnic groups such as the Saami people in the north of Norway” (para 23).
Although unsuccessful, Mr Friend was clearly an attractive party litigant and won over the court. Lord Hope notes at para 4 that Friend “brought to life, in a charming and restrained but forceful way, the very real sense of injustice that he and others in his position feel about what these enactments have done to the hunting community”. And Lord Brown notes at para 42 that “Mr Friend should know, however, that I had considerable sympathy for his submissions (which could not have been more beguilingly put)”.
On the same day the Lords decided in the same way
In August 2006 Tommy Sheridan, former Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity MSP, won a defamation action against the
I believe I am the victim of a political witch-hunt. I believe this whole farcical enquiry, which has usurped an incredible amount of public resources, was orchestrated and influenced by the powerful reach of the Murdoch empire.
Mr Sheridan's supporters have rallied to his cause and set up a website (
On 15 February 2008 Mr Sheridan was joined on the list of accused by fellow witnesses Rosemary Byrne (erstwhile Scottish Socialist MSP and the only one of that group to give evidence on Mr Sheridan's behalf), Graeme McIver (now the Solidarity Party national secretary), and two other members of the Solidarity Party, Patricia Smith and Jock Penman. On 19 February Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial