C1/2005/2071, C1/2005/2072, C1/2005/2071(B),
C1/2005/2071(C), C1/2005/2071(Y),
C1/2005/2072(A), C1/2005/2083
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ADMIINISTRATIVE COURT
(LORD JUSTICE MAY, MR JUSTICE MOSES)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE,
VICE PRESIDENT, COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
and
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
THE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE & ORS
CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS
- v -
HM ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANR
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT
(DAR Transcript of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The parties were excused attendance when the judgment ([2006] EWCA Civ 817) was handed down by Lord Justice Brooke on 23 rd June.
J U D G M E N T
STATEMENT ON HANDING DOWN JUDGMENT
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: These are two appeals and one application for permission to appeal that I heard with the Master of the Rolls and Buxton LJ in March.
For the reasons set out in the judgment of the court, copies of which have been made available to the parties, the appeals of the Human Rights appellants and of the European Community appellants are dismissed. The Human Rights appellants and the European Community appellants will each pay the respondents the costs of and occasioned by their respective appeals, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
The application of Mr Friend and Mr Thomas for permission to appeal is refused.
So far as the applications by the Human Rights appellants and the European Community appellants for permission to appeal to the House of Lords are concerned, we have received written submissions from the parties which we have had the opportunity to consider. We refuse permission to appeal to the House of Lords for both groups of appellants. So far as the Human Rights appellants are concerned, we have a very clear view that it must be a matter for the House itself to decide whether it is willing to entertain their appeal. So far as the European Community appellants are concerned, we have decided against them on the issue of justification, in which we consider that the law is clear and the issue is one for the judgment and assessment of the national court.
It may be of assistance to the press if I point out that, although we have not published a separate summary, the judgment contains at paragraphs 180 to 193 a summary of what we have decided in the full text of the judgment.
Order: C1/2005/2071 – Appeal dismissed.
C1/2005/2072 – Appeal dismissed.
C1/2005/2071(B) – Applications for permission to rely on further evidence granted.
C1/2005/2071(C) – Applications for permission to rely on further evidence granted.
C1/2005/2071(Y) – Applications for permission for renewal of part refusal of permission to appeal allowed.
C1/2005/2071(A) – Applications for permission to rely on further evidence granted.
C1/2005/2083 – Application for permission to appeal with appeal to follow if permission is granted – permission refused.