Hunt supporters will descend on the High Court today to mount an historic legal challenge in a bid to overturn the Government's proposals to ban hunting with hounds. Just weeks before the ban is due to come into force, the Countryside Alliance will argue the legislation is illegal and unjust and cannot go ahead. The legal team seeking a full judicial review is led by Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, who represented Nelson Mandela and also the late Steve Biko, the South African human rights campaigner. At the hearing, which is expected to last two days, the Alliance will argue that the Hunting Act is not good law because it was passed under the Parliament Act 1949, which was designed to allow Bills opposed by the Lords to become law after a year's delay. Campaigners argue that it was unlawful to bring the 1949 Act into force, without House of Lords approval, under the Parliament Act 1911. That argument has been rejected by anti-hunt campaigners the League Against Cruel Sports, which says it would be "unthinkable" for the courts to overturn the Parliament Act 1949 and therefore the Hunting Act. If judges rule against the Alliance, it can apply for an injunction delaying implementation of the law until the appeals process is over. In that case, hunts could operate unchanged for a few more months or up to several years - any challenge to the ban at Strasbourg's European Court is likely to take that length of time - but in a process riddled with possibilities further developments are likely. The Attorney General could oppose the injunction, but it is likely the Government will not ask him to do so. The League Against Cruel Sports has been granted leave by the High Court to challenge any delay in the hunting ban, which is due to come into force on February 18. John Jackson, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said: "This case has little to do with hunting and much more to do with the constitutional arrangements in our country and respect for the law. "We are asking the High Court to rule that the Parliament Act of 1949, which was used to impose the Hunting Act, is invalid and cannot be used to impose anything. "Our request is based on the belief that the House of Commons exceeded its powers unlawfully by amending the Parliament Act of 1911 to create the 1949 Act. "The Attorney General disagrees with us. If he is right, it will mean that we live in a country in which, without the consent of the House of Lords and with the Sovereign powerless to intervene, the House of Commons can change the structure and working of our constitution in any way it pleases. "The ordinary citizen would have no possibility of redress. We believe that this cannot, and should not, be so." The alliance is also planning a separate challenge under the Human Rights Act, arguing that the ban on hunting interferes with the private lives of hunters and the livelihoods of those employed by hunts. That claim is likely to be heard some time after the Parliament Act challenge. | 
