The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional practices and cultures.
Held: Any interference with the appellants article 11 rights was justified. The Act was not outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2007] UKHL 53
Links:
Statutes:
Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights 11, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Friend In Petition of Hagan, Friend v The Lord Advocate SCS 27-Sep-2005
. .
Cited – Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6 – General principle of Community law – Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement – Direct effect – Obligation to set aside conflicting national law. . .
Cited – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd PatC 16-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Cited – A v The Scottish Ministers PC 15-Oct-2001
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate . .
Cited by:
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Animals, Crime
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261604
