Whaley v Lord Watson, Scots CSIH 41
Citation: Whaley v Lord Watson, Scots CSIH 41
Rule of thumb: Is Parliament allowed to pass an Act stopping people from treating wild animals in their property in a certain way? Yes, this is not an invasion of the human right to privacy & private property as it serves the legitimate purpose of preventing cruelty to animals.
Judgment:
The basic facts of this case were that the newly formed Scottish Parliament of 1998 passed an Act which banned fox-hunting in Scotland – this Act was passed after Lord Watson after animal rights groups had lobbied Lord Watson as a member of the Scottish Parliament. Whaley ran a fox-hunting business in Scotland which meant that his livelihood was taken away by the ban, and argued that it was illegal for politicians to be lobbied like this with the introduction of legislation. The Court rejected these arguments and held that politicians are allowed to be lobbied as long as everything is properly accounted for the main thing is that political parties have to abide by the Acts and regulations which apply to them. However, the defence for Lord Watson tried to argue that the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the inner running of the Parliament. The Court rejected these arguments and held that it did have jurisdiction to review the inner running of the Parliament in order to ensure that it complied with regulation both for the the Parliament and for political parties, particularly the Scottish Parliament which is a creature of statute. This case was most famous for stating that the Westminster Parliament was sovereign and the Scottish Parliament was a body created by statute which did not have sovereignty, ‘... the fundamental character of the Parliament as a body which - however important its role - has been created by statute and derives its powers from statute. As such, it is a body which, like any other statutory body, must work within the scope of those powers. If it does not do so, then in an appropriate case the court may be asked to intervene and will require to do so, in a manner permitted by the legislation... the court has the same powers over the Parliament as it would have over any other statutory body and might, for instance, in an appropriate case grant a decree against it for the payment of damages. Some of the arguments of counsel for the first respondent appeared to suggest that it was somehow inconsistent with the very idea of a parliament that it should be subject in this way to the law of the land and to the jurisdiction of the courts which uphold the law. I do not share that view. On the contrary, if anything, it is the Westminster Parliament which is unusual in being respected as sovereign by the courts. And, now, of course, certain inroads have been made into even that sovereignty by the European Communities Act 1972... Members of the Scottish Parliament hold office by virtue of the 1998 Act and, again, their rights and duties derive ultimately from the Act...’ Lord President Rodger
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.