Click the case name for better results:

Adams and Others v Lord Advocate: IHCS 31 Jul 2002

(Opinion) The applicants challenged the introduction of restrictions of hunting by foxes, arguing that the law would infringe their human rights. Held: The Act was not infringing. Fox hunting as such was not a private activity protected by the Convention, and the interference with property rights was justified by the balancing interest of preventing cruelty … Continue reading Adams and Others v Lord Advocate: IHCS 31 Jul 2002

Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate: HL 28 Nov 2007

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 … Continue reading Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate: HL 28 Nov 2007

Handyside v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Dec 1976

Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to teach school children about sex, … Continue reading Handyside v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Dec 1976

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 by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007