R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others and others (Appellants)) v Her Majesty's Attorney General and another (Respondents)R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others (Appellants) and..

The House of Lords considered two appeals against the Hunting Act 2004. The first group of claimants, the HR claimants, argued that the Act infringed their rights under articles 8, 11 and 14 of and article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The second group of claimants, the EC claimants, argued that the Act was inconsistent with articles 28 and 49 of the EC Treaty. The House dismissed both appeals. The HR claimants argued that the Act infringed their rights under articles 8, 11 and 14 of and article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the House held that the claimants' complaints were far removed from the values which article 8 existed to protect, and that the effect of the Act was not to prohibit the assembly of the hunt but to prohibit a particular activity once the claimants had assembled. The House also held that the Act did not engage article 11, and that the claimants' discrimination claim under article 14 failed because there was no discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. The EC claimants argued that the Act was inconsistent with articles 28 and 49 of the EC Treaty. However, the House held that the Act did not engage article 28, and that it was not necessary to refer the question to the ECJ. The House also held that it was not acte clair whether the Act engaged article 49, and that it was not necessary to refer the question to the ECJ. The House held that the Act was justifiable and proportionate, and that respect should be paid to the recent and closely-considered judgment of a democratic assembly. The House dismissed both appeals.