The claimants sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Act under human rights law and on European law grounds. A variety of effects of the Act were alleged. It was said that it would prevent landowners enjoying their own land, and that the Act would prevent people enjoying their private lives. It was also said that it interfered with the claimants’ EC rights to trade freely.
Held: The aims of the legislation which were to prevent cruelty were legitimate and proportionate. At its highest the ban restricted certain limited forms of certain activities. Any infringement was legitimate and proportionate.
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 817, Times 30-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1096, [2006] 3 WLR 1017, [2007] Eu LR 139, [2007] QB 305, [2006] HRLR 33, [2006] UKHRR 927
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Secretary of State for Education and Skills Admn 16-Nov-2006
The various applicants sought judicial review of the operation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List insofar as they had been placed provisionally on the list, preventing them from finding work. One complaint was that the list had operated . .
Cited – L, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 1-Mar-2007
The court considered the proper content of an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant said that it should contain only matter relating to actual or potential criminal activity.
Held: As to the meaning of section 115: ‘if Parliament . .
Appeal From – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242695