Hunting Ban Legal Challenge Thrown Out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
A

Ardross

Guest
The challenge has been thrown out - no surprise there . Frankly it was hopeless and a waste ot time and money

The LACS is opposing any injunction pending appeal . The judges should show the balls to uphold the law even though the Govt won't
 
...however it'll be appealed, probably to the House of Lords. If a decision to, in effect, overturn an Act is to be made, the Law Lords would be the ones to make it (a la Belmarsh detainees case). Today was just the first step.
 
Originally posted by vixen@Jan 28 2005, 01:08 PM
...however it'll be appealed, probably to the House of Lords. If a decision to, in effect, overturn an Act is to be made, the Law Lords would be the ones to make it (a la Belmarsh detainees case). Today was just the first step.
Click to expand...
I'd like to change my username for this one post to "Fat Bloke On A Horse Following Hounds"

Vixen,

I am going to hunt you down and watch whilst my hounds rip you to pieces.

:D
 
Sorry vixen that is wrong

1 This was not a case under the Human Rights Act

2 The higher courts cannot strike down legislation under the HRA they can only issue a declaration of incompatibility however the High Court Court of Appeal and the House of Lords can issue such declarations.

3 The chances of this being struck down are nil . The Parliament Act 1911 specifically applies to any Public Bill . The CA are trying to imply a section into the statute that does not exist i.e that this does not apply to any further Parliament Acts -

4 Permission to appeal can be granted if (i) there are reasonable prospects of success or (ii) there is some other compelling reason to hear it - permission was granted under the latter head i.e constitutional importance .

5 The Scottish Courts have already thrown out similar HRA challenges
 
Originally posted by Ardross+Jan 28 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ardross @ Jan 28 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1 This was not a case under the Human Rights Act
[/b]
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. My reference to the Belmarsh detainees was merely in respect of the significance of the issues at stake, i.e. the ruling that the detention without trial was unlawful, and the implications of this for the government. Overturning the HA '04 by this challenge to the Parlt Act '49 would have similarly significant implications hence the lower courts would probably be unwilling to countenance it.
The separate HRA action if successful would probably only result in compensation being awarded, not the overturning of the Act itself.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ardross@Jan 28 2005, 05:33 PM

5 The Scottish Courts have already thrown out similar HRA challenges
[/quote]
But the Scottish law is quite different to the HA '04, for instance allowing gun packs to operate, therefore the HR implications are much reduced. Not that this helps owners of coursing dogs, mind you, but that's another issue entirely.....
 
Back
Top