What does one have to do with the other?
The tradition of fox hunting is very strong in the United Kingdom and when the government introduced a bill which would make foxhunting with hounds illegal, there was an uproar by countryside enthusiasts. Those opposed to foxhunting argued that the fox suffered a cruel and painful death when hunted by hounds and that causing such suffering as a sport was wrong. Those who are for foxhunting argue that it is a form of pest control and because it is an embedded tradition for many people it has become a life and culture for those people. After many years of debating and many turns within the legislative bodies, the Hunting Act was passed in 2004, which banned hunting with dogs for foxes, deer, hares and mink, as well as organised hare coursing in England and Wales from 18 February 2005.
Since the Act was passed there have been many challenges to it. The latest challenge has now been decided by the House of Lords in the case, Regina (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another Regina (Derwin and Others) v Same. The court dismissed the appeal from the Court of Appeal stating that the Hunting Act did not contravene human rights.
Various arguments were raised in order to obtain declaratory relief finding that the Act contravened the Human Rights Act and other rights afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights or the treaty establishing the European Union. The Countryside Alliance claimed that the Hunting Act violates the fundamental human right to livelihood and the way of life which revolves around the actual hunt. They argued that between 6,000 and 8,000 people would eventually lose their work, livelihood and homes. Other parties argued that the Hunting Act contravened Article 49 of the EU Treaty which gives a right of free movement of the provision of services.
In the judgment, Lord Bingham said that the purpose of Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights (which is scheduled to the Human Rights Act), which gives the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, was to protect the individual against intrusion by state agents, unless for good reason, into the private sphere where individuals expected to be left alone to conduct their personal affairs and live their personal lives as they chose. Due to the fact that foxhunting is a very public pursuit which is not carried out in the privacy of an individual’s home or business, it did not fall within the activities which Article 8 aims to protect. He also stated that the democratic process was liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, those who are against the Hunting Act were able to overturn it through the courts because they were unsuccessful in preventing the Act from being passed in Parliament. The court also argued that the Hunting Act was a social reform and therefore was not a hindrance to commercial behaviour as such. The EU Treaty allows for such measures (Article 46) and therefore the Hunting Act was compatible with the EU Treaty.
The ban therefore lives on although many may still find other legal arguments and try to have them tested by a court in order to be able to carry on the tradition.
Share