Adams & Ors v. Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 127 (28 May 2004)

Adams & Ors v. Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 127 (28 May 2004)

The court held that the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 does not infringe the petitioners' rights under Articles 8, 11, 14, or Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Foxhunting is not part of private life or home as protected by Article 8; the Act does not interfere with freedom of association under Article 11, as it prohibits an activity rather than association itself; and the control of use of property is justified in the general interest under Article 1 of Protocol 1. The Scottish Parliament acted within its discretionary area of judgment, and the prohibition is proportionate and justified.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 127
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Trevor Adams; Petitioner and Reclaimer: Nigel Murray; Petitioner and Reclaimer: Richard Holman-Baird; Petitioner and Reclaimer: Joe Scott Plummer; Petitioner and Reclaimer: The Fife Hunt and Colin Campbell and John Gilmour; Petitioner and Reclaimer: The Buccleuch Hunt Supporters Club and Anthony Aglen and Jacqueline Aglen; Petitioner and Reclaimer: The Jedforest Hunt and Timothy Finch and Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Moon; Petitioner and Reclaimer: The Countryside Alliance and John Jackson and Charles Wilson; Petitioner and Reclaimer: The Masters of Foxhounds Association and The Lord Daresbury and Alastair Jackson; Respondent: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Petition dismissed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed (except as to pleas for Advocate General and common law).
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Review, Animal Welfare Legislation, Property Rights, Freedom of Association
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Legislative Competence European Convention on Human Rights Judicial Review Animal Welfare Legislation Property Rights +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Adams

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Nigel Murray

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Richard Holman-Baird

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Joe Scott Plummer

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Fife Hunt and Colin Campbell and John Gilmour

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Buccleuch Hunt Supporters Club and Anthony Aglen and Jacqueline Aglen

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Jedforest Hunt and Timothy Finch and Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Moon

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Countryside Alliance and John Jackson and Charles Wilson

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Masters of Foxhounds Association and The Lord Daresbury and Alastair Jackson

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 is ultra vires the Scottish Parliament for incompatibility with ECHR rights (Articles 8, 11, 14, and Article 1 of Protocol 1)
  2. 2 Whether the Act unlawfully interferes with private life, home, association, or property rights of the petitioners

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 does not infringe the petitioners' rights under Articles 8, 11, 14, or Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Foxhunting is not part of private life or home as protected by Article 8; the Act does not interfere with freedom of association under Article 11, as it prohibits an activity rather than association itself; and the control of use of property is justified in the general interest under Article 1 of Protocol 1. The Scottish Parliament acted within its discretionary area of judgment, and the prohibition is proportionate and justified.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed (except as to pleas for Advocate General and common law).

Orders

  • Petition for reduction of the Act refused.
  • No relevant case made under Articles 8, 11, 14, or Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR.