Tag Archive: badgers

  1. High Court rejects Natural England bid to hike legal costs for campaigners challenging badger culling

    Comments Off on High Court rejects Natural England bid to hike legal costs for campaigners challenging badger culling

    An attempt by Natural England to hike campaigners’ legal costs to challenge badger culling licences has been blocked by the High Court.

    The legal challenge, brought by wildlife groups Wild Justice and Badger Trust, opposes the granting of 26 culling licences by Natural England.

    The challenge faced a potential stumbling block after Natural England applied to increase the limit on the groups’ adverse legal costs from the standard £10,000 for NGOs to £20,000 for Wild Justice and £30,000 for Badger Trust.

    If Natural England had won, the legal challenge could have proved too expensive for the groups to bring. However, the High Court has now dismissed this request, meaning a cap of £10,000 will remain in place for both groups.

    The 26 supplementary culling licences were granted for between June and November 2024, and allowed farmers to kill badgers during this period.

    This decision to grant the licences was made against the advice of Natural England’s own scientists, with Badger Trust and Wild Justice contesting that the licences were granted unlawfully.

    The groups argue that the licences were granted to maintain the confidence of the farming community rather than for the proper purpose of preventing the spread of disease, which Natural England’s director of science had concluded could be achieved via alternative methods such as a vaccine.

    After launching their claim in August 2024, Badger Trust and Wild Justice were granted permission for the challenge to go ahead in May 2025 following a renewal hearing.

    In August 2025, Natual England applied to the High Court to have the costs caps for both groups raised. The caps are provided for by the Aarhus Convention and cover all environmental claims – with costs for individual claimants initially capped at £5,000 and costs for NGOs capped at £10,000.

    Natural England attempted to argue that Wild Justice and Badger Trust should dip into cash reserves in order to fund the legal claim, which both groups argued was not justified based on their income.

    Wild Justice is not-for-profit organisation run by unpaid directors. Its funds tend to be spent quickly on daily running costs, campaigning expenses and legal challenges. The group’s only source of income is donations.

    Badger Trust is also not-for-profit and relies on donations for its income as well. Its funds go towards wages, running costs and support to member groups. The Trust maintains a policy of following Charity Commission Guidance to have 12 months’ expenditure in reserve to ensure obligations are met should there be a drop in income.

    After hearing arguments and witness statements, a judge opted to reject Natural England’s application to increase the costs cap for Wild Justice and Badger Trust. The judge’s reasoning for dismissing the application is set to follow in due course.

    Caps of £10,000 will remain in place for both groups, with a substantive hearing for the claim itself due to take place on 16 and 17 December 2025.

    Chris Packham, director of Wild Justice said:

    “This was a calculated attempt to block grass roots groups from accessing environmental justice on account of affordability. Cynical, anti-democratic and bullying…Natural England should be ashamed of themselves”.

    Bob Elliot, CEO of Wild Justice said:

    “Natural England tried to price justice out of reach – and failed. This ruling is a clear reminder that public bodies cannot use financial intimidation to silence legitimate environmental challenge. Attempts to raise our costs cap were nothing more than an effort to shut the courtroom door on public scrutiny. Justice must be accessible, not auctioned to the highest bidder. The badgers may not have a voice in court, but we do, and we’ll keep using it to hold decision makers to account.”

    Rosie Wood, chair of Badger Trust said:

    “I don’t like bullies at the best of times and this was a shameless attempt to bully us out of lawfully challenging Natural England’s decision making. If a government body can force us to drop a case – even though a judge has already given permission for it to be heard in full – what sort of precedent would that set? We might be a very small charity, but badgers are a mercilessly persecuted native British animal – we will stand up for them at all times and we won’t be intimidated.”

    Leigh Day solicitor Carol Day, who represents both groups, said:

    “Our clients are pleased that this attempt by Natural England to increase the costs of the case, thereby making it prohibitively expensive, has been thrown out by the courts. Both claimants are small NGOs of modest means, which rely solely on fundraising for income. An increase in the costs cap would not only have disrupted this legal challenge, but also would have set a worrying precedent for other environmental claims.”

  2. Taking the next step with our badger cull challenge

    Comments Off on Taking the next step with our badger cull challenge

    Today we’ve announced we’re taking the next steps in our legal challenge of badger culls, alongside the Badger Trust. See the press release from our lawyers, Leigh Day, below.

    Wildlife groups Badger Trust and Wild Justice have begun a legal challenge after the government’s nature conservation agency Natural England issued additional badger culling licences against scientific advice from its own experts.

    The 26 supplementary badger cull licences authorise farmers to kill badgers from June to November, despite Natural England’s director of science advising that there was “no justification” for the action.

    Natural England stated that one of its reasons for issuing the licences was to maintain the confidence of farmers in the government’s disease reduction programmes, as set out by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    Wildlife charity Badger Trust and not-for-profit company Wild Justice, represented by law firm Leigh Day, will argue that Natural England issued licences unlawfully for the purpose of maintaining the confidence of the farming community, rather than for the proper purpose of preventing the spread of disease.

    Licences for badger culling are issued to assist in preventing the spread of tuberculosis (TB) amongst cattle, a practice regarded as controversial but while operated within strictly limited periods of time was previously supported by scientific advice from Natural England.

    In February 2024, the organisation received 26 applications for supplementary badger culling licences. However, its director of science concluded in April that, following four years of previous intensive badger culls, alternatives such as a vaccine meant that there was no requirement for further culling.

    Despite this advice commissioned from its own scientists, in May Natural England opted to issue the supplementary licences spanning from 1 June to 30 November.

    This was following advice from officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) about the consequences on their relationship with the farming industry if the licences were not granted.

    Officials from Defra advised Natural England that abrupt policy changes would “seriously undermine” Defra’s ability to work constructively with the farming industry on future disease control.

    A briefing paper on the licensing decision prepared for Natural England’s executive committee also identified the maintenance of the organisation’s relationship with the National Farmers’ Union and the farming community as an advantage of issuing the licences.

    The licences were granted on 10 May 2024. Wild Justice and Badger Trust have now applied for judicial review of Natural England’s decision to issue the licences, arguing that Natural England:

    • Unlawfully exercised the statutory power to issue licences to kill badgers for the improper purpose of maintaining farmers’ confidence in the Secretary of State’s policy, rather than for the narrower (and proper) purpose of “preventing the spread of disease”.
    • Had regard to considerations that were legally irrelevant to its decision on whether to issue the licences. These included the consequences of the decision for its relationships with Defra and the “farming community”, and for its own budget and the wellbeing of its staff.
    • Failed to provide adequate and rational reasons as to why the licences should be issued after its director of science had advised that there was no scientific justification for issuing the licences. 

    The campaign groups are represented by Leigh Day environment team solicitors Carol Day and Ricardo Gama, as well as barristers David Wolfe KC and Barney McCay.

    Wild Justice said:

    “’The previous Conservative government leant on Natural England to approve these licences. Why would the new Labour government, which offered ‘change’ in its election manifesto, be prepared to defend that action in the courts? Not only is it not ‘change’, it’s spending taxpayers’ money on the previous government’s flawed decisions.”

    Rosie Wood from Badger Trust said:

    “Saying you don’t want to upset trade industry lobbyists is no reason to slaughter badgers.  Natural England’s scientist said stop the badger cull, and it’s time for the new Defra Secretary of State, Steve Reed, to step up and stop this mess right now. TB is overwhelmingly a cattle-to-cattle spread disease.  Follow the evidence – end the badger cull, stop this egregious attack on nature and stop misleading the public, farmers and the taxpayer.” 

    Leigh Day’s Ricardo Gama said:

    “Our clients were surprised by Natural England’s decision to go ahead with issuing supplementary badger culling licences in spite of the clear advice from its own scientists that the decision would not be justifiable and would breach legislation intended to protect badgers. Our clients hope to persuade the court that the decision to overlook this advice in favour of maintaining relationships with the farming community was unlawful.”