Hunting ban upheld

Friday, 28 January 2005 12:00 AM

The High Court has upheld the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales.

The decision was warmly welcomed by animal rights campaigners the League Against Cruel Sports, but pro-hunt campaigners vowed to fight on

Speaking outside the High Court, chief executive of LACS, Douglas Batchelor, said it was "a very good day for us and a very good day for British wildlife".

League chairman and barrister John Cooper said: "This is a great day for Parliamentary democracy. The elected House of Commons has ten times voted overwhelmingly for a ban on the cruelty of hunting with dogs and each time the ban - supported by three quarters of the British public - was blocked by the unelected House of Lords. Rightly, the will of the people and their elected representatives has prevailed."

The decision was also welcomed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). Its UK director, Phyllis Campbell McRae, said: "As expected, the pro-hunt lobby has failed to overturn the ban on the cruel sport of hunting with dogs. The democratic will of the people and of parliament has been rightly upheld."

It called for all hunters to "respect this ruling and stop hunting when the ban comes into force on February 18. The sooner this barbaric activity is consigned to the history books the better."

Simon Hart, the chief executive of the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance said the result was "not a surprising outcome", adding: "We always thought it might end up in the House of Lords"

"It is a hugely significant constitutional case and consequently a difficult decision for the divisional courts to make. We remain confident in the merits of our case."

He argued that the alliance still had a realistic prospect of success, saying: "The judges accepted that we had a legitimate case and that the court has the power to overturn the act, although on this occasion the judges disagreed with the legal points made, so today's judgement suggests that we have strong grounds for appeal. If, however, the Court of Appeal is not prepared to uphold our case we will seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords."

The case will now be heard by the Court of Appeal on February 8.

Mr Hart added: "[The judge] granted us leave to appeal. It is an important constitutional matter and should not be decided in this court. We have plenty of reason to be optimistic.

"There was plenty in there which said you have a good case, we're not agreeing with you today but take it further."

As the case will most likely be heard before the ban on hunting comes into force, the alliance is not applying for an injunction at this stage.

However, Mr Hart said that if the Court of Appeal rejects its case "we might also apply for an injunction to prevent prosecutions under the Hunting Act pending the outcome of the legal challenges. We will only consider this route if an injunction would represent a real benefit for the countryside - and is not just an attempt by the Government to delay commencement until after a general election."

Lawyers for the Countryside Alliance had contested that the 1949 Parliament Act, which updated the 1911 Parliament Act was invalid because it was not passed by peers.

The 1949 act was used by the House of Commons to push through a ban on hunting with hounds in England and Wales, despite the opposition of peers.

But, the Countryside Alliance argued that the 1949 act was invalid, along with any legislation passed using it.

The Government, represented by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, had strongly contested the case, claiming that that 1949 act was valid.

A ban on hunting with hounds in England and Wales is due to come into force on February 18.

The Countryside Alliance is also tabling a case under human rights legislation, which is expected to start next week.

Tags: