SUCCESS! Legal challenge against badger cull licensing gets go ahead

Natural England is being hauled into court over its outrageous decision to authorise culls last year

A legal challenge against Natural England's granting of badger cull licences in 2024 is going ahead, after a judge gave permission for the claim to be heard in the High Court. Protect the Wild is thrilled by this news as it offers hope that the body will be held to account over its outrageous decision to grant these licences.

In mid-2024, conservation ecologist Tom Langton discovered through Freedom of Information requests that Natural England had approved cull licences in May that year against the advice of its own Director of Science, Dr Peter Brotherton. The licences in question were for supplementary culls, meaning the continued killing of badgers after four years of "intensive" slaughter operations in those areas.

Brotherton had advised Natural England that there was no justification for authorising the supplementary culls to tackle bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cows. In his opinion, the steps already taken, along with cow-focused measures, such as on-farm biosecurity practices, and badger vaccination, rendered further badger killing in these areas unnecessary.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had other ideas. Despite describing its bTB policy as "adaptive," it effectively warned Natural England against making "abrupt changes to policy." DEFRA said that such changes would "seriously undermine our ability to engage constructively with the industry on future disease control interventions."

Ultimately, Natural England danced to DEFRA's tune, rather than that of its own scientific director, by authorising the supplementary culls in question.

Full speed ahead for judicial review

In August, the Badger Trust and Wild Justice launched a judicial review challenge over the matter, arguing that the licences were unlawfully granted. Although their application for a judicial review was initially rejected, it has recently been reconsidered and granted permission to proceed at the High Court. The wildlife groups are represented by Leigh Day and the hearing should take place later this year.

The groups are challenging Natural England's decision on several grounds. First, they argue that the body exercised its power for an "improper purpose," namely maintaining the confidence of farmers. As preventing the spread of disease is the proper purpose for which Natural England's power should be exercised in this situation, the groups say the body used its power unlawfully.

Additionally, the groups argue that Natural England considered "legally irrelevant" factors in its decision-making, such as DEFRA's concerns about how its relations with the farming industry would be affected. Finally, Wild Justice and the Badger Trust assert that the body failed to offer "adequate and rational reasons" for authorising the culls after Brotherton concluded there was no scientific justification for doing so.

Summing up the situation, Wild Justice co-director Chris Packham said:

" The science says ‘no’, the chief scientist therefore said ‘no’, but DEFRA said ‘yes’, and thousands of badgers were unnecessarily and cruelly killed. Just to keep farmers ‘happy’."

Badger Trust CEO Nigel Palmer also commented that the court's "landmark decision" to allow the case to proceed "casts doubt on Natural England’s ability to act in the interest of nature and wildlife."

As Wild Justice's co-director Dr Ruth Tingay pointed out, the decision puts Natural England in "a very difficult situation" as it considers whether to grant more authorisations this year to kill badgers. Tingay said:

"It would be sensible for Natural England to defer any decision about future cull licences until this case concludes."

Protect the Wild couldn't agree more that licensing decisions should be deferred. Better still, just scrap them all with immediate effect.

Natural England's core purpose is to "help conserve, enhance and manage the natural environment." But when it comes to the badger cull, the body’s actions make it better suited to being a dystopian agency in an Orwell novel (its motto might read something like 'destroy to conserve, degrade to enhance, and wreck to manage') than on the frontlines of the UK's biodiversity crisis. If the body wants to start picking up the pieces of its tattered reputation, deferring the licences would be a good place to start.

---

We Did It — 100,000 Voices for Badgers!

The pressure is really on the government now!

Thanks to you, our govt petition to end the badger cull has just surpassed 100,000 signatures — the threshold needed to trigger a debate in Parliament.

The petition closes on 25th May - if you haven’t signed it there is still time!

In combination our petition and this judicial review is a massive moment in our fight to protect one of Britain’s most iconic wild animals. Thank you.