Hunting ban invalid, court told
Lawyers acting on behalf of the Countryside Alliance yesterday told the High Court that the use of the Parliament Act to force through legislation banning hunting with dogs was invalid.
The Hunting Act received Royal Assent last November and is due to come into force on February 18.
House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin invoked the Parliament Act for only the fourth time in 55 years to put the law on the statute books.
Leading the case for the alliance on Tuesday, Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC, said the hunting legislation was not an Act of Parliament because it was based on the 1949 Parliament Act.
The 1949 act updated conditions attached to the original Parliament Act 1911, but crucially as far as the alliance’s case is concerned, was passed without the consent of the House of Lords.
The 1911 Parliament Act allowed the Government to bypass the wishes of the House of Lords if peers rejected the views of the Commons on three successive occasions within a two-year period. The 1949 act reduced this to two successive occasions within a one-year period.
The Countryside Alliance argues that the use of the Parliament Act to pass the hunting legislation satisfied the conditions of the 1949 act, but not the 1911 Act.
But the QC for the Government, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, said there was “no doubt” the 1949 Act was passed in accordance with the correct procedure under the 1911 Act.
Pro-hunt campaigners say the livelihoods of people connected to the sport will be lost when the law comes into force.
Sir Sydney told a packed court: “If it becomes law it will prevent many thousands more from continuing lawfully what has been a major source of recreation and enjoyment.”
Outside the court, Baroness Mallalieu, Labour peer and president of the Countryside Alliance, said the legal challenge signified one of the most important constitutional cases in the last 100 years.
The Government expects the challenge to fail, but accepts that if it succeeds it could have implications for other legislation passed under the 1949 Act.
If it does fail, the Countryside Alliance will apply for an injunction to allow further appeals against the ban.
The League Against Cruel Sports, represented in the case by David Pannick, QC, will contest any application for an injunction.
The hearing is expected to last until Wednesday and the judges, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Collins, will deliver their conclusions at the end of the week.
A separate challenge to the Hunting Act is being brought under the Human Rights Act, and possibly taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
The alliance will argue hunting legislation breaches seven rights, including the enjoyment of possessions, respect for private life, and the right to associate and assemble for a common purpose.
