Badger Trust, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food And Rural Affairs
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
- Animal Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Badger Trust challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to continue badger culling without the oversight of an Independent Expert Panel (IEP) as initially promised. The Trust claimed that this decision breached a legitimate expectation and was unlawful. However, the court held that the Defendant's decision did not violate the legitimate expectation of the Badger Trust, as the alleged assurances were neither clear nor unambiguous. The claim was dismissed, with multiple previous cases referenced to support the judgment.
The Claimant, the Badger Trust, promotes the conservation and welfare of badgers, their setts and habitat. In this claim the Badger Trust challenges the decision taken on or about 3 April 2014 by the Defendant, the Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to continue, for a second season, the culling of badgers by controlled shooting in two pilot areas.
The single ground of challenge is that the Defendant had given an unqualified and unequivocal assurance that, as long as she had in real contemplation the ‘rolling out’ (that is, the extension) of culling to other geographical areas, she would keep in place an Independent Expert Panel (‘the IEP’), and would not extend culling beyond the two pilot areas unless (a) the IEP had concluded that culling by controlled shooting was safe, effective and humane; or (b) the Defendant had at least taken into account an evaluation made by the IEP (at the end of the second or any subsequent season in
the two pilot areas) as to the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of culling by controlled shooting.
The Defendant indisputably does have in real contemplation the ‘rolling out’ of culling by controlled shooting beyond the two pilot areas, but does not intend to keep in place an IEP for the second and subsequent seasons in the two pilot areas. The Defendant, therefore, it is contended, does not intend to comply with the unqualified and unequivocal assurance that she gave. The Badger Trust has in law a legitimate expectation that she would comply, and accordingly the decision to proceed with further culling by controlled shooting in the two pilot areas is unlawful.
The Badger Trust acknowledges that no decision has yet been made to roll out culling beyond the two pilot areas, and that the Badger Trust could seek to challenge any such future decision (if it were in fact taken). However, on that scenario it might be objected that, having putatively allowed culling to continue in the two pilot areas for some further period without legal challenge, the Badger Trust could no longer attack such a future decision; and in any event it is just, convenient and conducive to good public administration that the issue raised by this claim be determined before culling is continued in the pilot areas. I see good sense in the position taken in that respect by the Badger Trust.
Factual Background
In June 2012 the Badger Trust challenged the decision of the Defendant taken on 14 December 2011 to adopt a policy on B