Judge backs hunt legal bid

The battle over hunting with dogs went to the courts today - with one of Britain's most senior ex-judges endorsing moves to overturn the ban.

In the first of at least two major legal actions, campaigners argued that the way the Hunting Bill was railroaded on to the statute books last night was unlawful.

If the action fails, the 700-year-old sport will be abolished on 18 February next year.

But former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, said the legal fight had "100 per cent strength", on the grounds that the 1949 Parliament Act - used by MPs to overrule opponents in the House of Lords - was invalid.

"My personal view is that it is right, 100 per cent strength," he said, adding: "Whether the courts will agree is a matter for them. I have no strong views about hunting - but I have very strong views about freedom and the right of choice, and I think the evidence is very strongly in favour of the hunting people."

The court action began after more than 1,000 banner-waving demonstrators flocked to Windsor Castle last night to heckle Tony Blair as he arrived for a banquet in honour of Jacques Chirac. They blasted hunting horns and jeered.

Protest leaders vowed to step up their demonstrations in the run-up to the general election, with some threatening disruption and civil disobedience. Mr Blair today agreed it would be an election issue. Saying he had striven to strike a compromise without success, he said: "We will now go to the courts and I have no doubt it will be an issue, but it always was going to be an issue."

Commons leader Peter Hain ruled at any further attempts by the Government to delay or water down the ban. "That's it. The ban will come into force in February," he said.

The Hunting Act was finally passed after a day of shouting matches and confusion at Westminster. Labour backbenchers were left demoralised, however, after a failed 11th-hour bid by the Government to delay the ban until 2007. In the end, the Parliament Act was invoked for only the fourth time since 1949.

However, campaigners claim to have unearthed a loophole, asserting that the Parliament Act was improperly drawn up. The second legal action will claim the ban breaches the Human Rights Act.