WILD JUSTICE WITH THE LONG RUNNING LEGAL DEBATE ON BADGER CULLING

Good afternoon, Today we bring you news on the outcome of our legal challenge against Natural England’s decision to issue supplementary licences for Badger culling – a result which is complicated, nuanced, but in our opinion, ultimately very positive. Natural England concedes farming interests must not drive Badger cull decisions following our legal challenge. Our, long running challenge against supplementary Badger culling licences finally concluded this week, after a hearing at our day in court on the High Court on 16th June. The Honourable Mr Justice Fordham handed down his judgment today, in which he declined to grant a declaration. On the face of it this isn’t a very clear outcome – essentially the judgment is that there is no judgment. But crucially, through taking this legal challenge, we’ve secured some important admissions from Natural England and Defra which could have nationwide implications for Badgers and any proposed future culls. Most importantly, they have formally recognised, on the record, that farming interests, political pressure, and budget considerations must not be factors considered when authorising Badger culls. Through this legal challenge, we uncovered internal documents that would never have otherwise entered the public domain. These papers, prepared for Natural England's Executive Committee (“NexCo”), briefed senior leadership on applications for supplementary Badger cull licences and they were very illuminating. The documents listed five considerations that were implied to be relevant to the granting of cull licences, which were: Potential consequences for Natural England's "wider relationships within the farming community" Potential consequences for Natural England's relationship with Defra Natural England's exposure to compensation claims from the farming industry Pressure to meet farming industry timelines and avoid "questions raised by the NFU" Consequences for Natural England's budget, including potential staff layoffs and wellbeing issues Natural England subsequently granted 26 supplementary Badger cull licences on 3 May 2024, despite its own Director of Science stating there was "no justification" for the cull. Following this, we brought this legal challenge (along with the Badger Trust) on the basis that Natural England’s decision had been improperly influenced by these irrelevant considerations. In a witness statement filed some 15 months after the cased was lodged in court, Natural England clarified that while the NexCo Paper was commissioned so that its executive committee “could understand the risks and consequences of the different decisions that might be taken” and was accessible to the person making the decision on the licences (Dr Oliver Harmer, who sits on NexCo (here), he did not in fact click on a link to it (and therefore see the paper) before making his decision on the licences. We think it is quite surprising that decisions of this importance can be made by senior officials without considering comprehensive briefing materials. But regardless, as a result, no finding of unlawfulness could be made, and the Court declined our invitation to formally rule that the five considerations would have been unlawful, only on the basis that courts should not rule on hypothetical questions (now that the application and culls have passed). However, crucially, both Natural England and the Defra Secretary of State conceded (NE before and during the hearing and the Secretary of State at the hearing) that those considerations would have been unlawful to rely upon. Both have now formally recognised that farming interests, political pressure, and budget considerations must play no part in authorising any future Badger culls. This is a good outcome for Badgers, because as we know that there is also no scientific justification for similar culls. We brought this case because we believe Badger culling is inhumane, lacks scientific justification, and in this case apparently pursued primarily to satisfy the farming lobby rather than on legitimate public health grounds. The internal documents we uncovered vindicated those concerns, and without this challenge, they would never have seen the light of day. We also recognised that while the target of the legal challenge was the decision to approve the licences in May 2024, the case was (and was always intended to be) an audit of the legality of public decision-making.As the Judge noted in a previous judgment in this case: “it is always on the cards that judicial review will be backward looking in this kind of case. That does not undermine the value of the legal audit. Nor is that value necessarily a function of the outcomes of cases. The public interest enterprise of judicial review accountability secures lawfulness. It promotes discipline. It exposes unlawfulness. It promotes public confidence in public authority decision-making”. What is important is that a decision to cull Badgers based on these types of erroneous and unlawful factors should never be taken again. This lengthy process has also resulted in a free-standing and landmark judgment on the issue of legal costs. During proceedings last year, Natural England attempted to remove our standard costs protections under the Aarhus Convention, in an apparent attempt to make the challenge unaffordable for Wild Justice and Badger Trust. The Court emphatically rejected this, affirming that legal challenges of this kind "promote a public interest in an environmental protection context." At the time, Mr Justice Fordham said “Finally, the signals which the law gives in environmental judicial review cases matter. Especially when the rationale of environmental costs caps is to avoid inappropriate deterrence or chilling effects. All of which is because something bigger than all of us is at stake: the environment which we share with each other, and with others, and for which we are responsible.” This ruling benefits environmental cases far beyond the world of Badger culls (read a great blog on it here), strengthening the ability of charities, campaign groups and individuals across the board to bring environmental challenges without facing prohibitive costs. It has already been cited in several court cases, including in the Supreme Court last week. Back in April 2025, our solicitors at Leigh Day offered to drop the case entirely in exchange for each side bearing their own costs. We thought this was a fair and reasonable offer. Natural England refused however, demanding instead that we pay all of their legal costs to date. That figure was £5,800. We pushed on, and ultimately the judge ordered that neither side pays the other's costs, vindicating our decision to reject NE's demand. Had NE accepted our offer, months of further litigation could have been avoided. Instead, their refusal to engage reasonably meant the case continued, and the concessions we secured came with it. Once again, we’d like to thank our brilliant legal team at Leigh Day who helped get this case to court – your dedication throughout many twists and turns has been admirable. So, thank you Ricky Gama, Carol Day, Julia Eriksen and Madeeha Akhtar at Leigh Day, David Wolfe KC at Matrix Chambers and Barney McCay at Landmark Chambers – you’ve all been brilliant! And, most importantly, thank you – our supporters who helped us bring this case into the court room. Without your support over the last two years (!), we wouldn’t have been able to shine a light on these decision making processes and, ultimately, help ensure that unlawful decisions aren’t made in the future. You can read our press release on the case on our website - click here. Thank you, Wild Justice (CEO: Bob Elliot. Directors: Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay). This is the 270th Wild Justice newsletter. This email was sent to you because you subscribed to it through the Wild Justice website or through an e-action or a petition where you ticked a box. Thank you. We will only use your personal details to send you the Wild Justice newsletter. We will not give or sell your details to anyone else. You can unsubscribe at any time: there is an unsubscribe button at the foot of this email or you can reply to this email and ask us to remove you from the list (the former will happen immediately, the latter might take a few days). 124, City Road London Greater London EC1V 2NX UNITED KINGDOM Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options