Saving the Environment Matters, But So Do Individual Human Rights!

27/02/2018


Everyone understands the vital importance of protecting the environment and that the interests of individuals sometimes have to give way to achieving that greater good. An important Supreme Court ruling concerning a salmon fisherman has, however, opened a route to compensation for at least some of those affected.

The fisherman had, for many years, held a lease that entitled him to take salmon from a stretch of the River Severn, using the ancient ‘putcher rank’ technique, which involves trapping adult salmon in conical baskets. He was required to obtain an annual licence from the Environment Agency (EA) in order to carry out his trade.

He had in the past caught hundreds of salmon each year. However, due to concerns about declining salmon stocks in two connected rivers that were classified as Special Areas of Conservation, the EA imposed conditions on his licence that restricted his catch to just 30 fish per year. Further reductions were imposed in subsequent years, but no compensation was paid to him in respect of those restrictions.

The fisherman launched judicial review proceedings on the basis that the restrictions were so onerous as to make his business wholly uneconomic to operate. His lease had been rendered of little or no value. The High Court, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, accepted that the imposition of the restrictions without compensation amounted to a breach of his human right to peaceful possession of his property, enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In ruling on the EA’s challenge to the latter decision, the Supreme Court noted the importance of preserving the environment and that Article 1 gives those affected by necessary environmental controls no general expectation of compensation. However, in dismissing the appeal, the Court found that the disproportionately grave impact that the restrictions had on the fisherman made the case exceptional on its facts. The EA had given no consideration to the severe effect the restrictions had on his livelihood.

Contact us for more information


Share this article