• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The UPC Blog

LoupedIn

Court upholds refusal of badger culling licence

Published on December 2, 2020 by Kieran Laird, John Cooper and Ravi Randhawa

Court upholds refusal of badger culling licence

In R (The National Farmers Union & Another) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Another, the court found that the Secretary of State (the ‘SofS’) had lawfully made the decision to issue a direction under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the “2006 Act”) precluding Natural England (‘NE’) from granting any licences to cull badgers in Derbyshire before 1 May 2020.

In England, badgers are a protected species and may only be culled, under licence, to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis (“bTB“). NE is the delegated licensing authority under the 2006 Act. In exercising that function it was required to have regard to statutory guidance issued by the SofS setting out the government’s approach to culling and the requirements that must be met for an applicant to be granted a culling licence.

With technical support from the first claimant, the second claimant applied for a licence covering parts of Derbyshire and Staffordshire (the “Lunar Area“). It was common ground that it met the requirements set out in the Guidance and NE was on course to grant a licence. However, the Lunar Area contained, and was adjacent to, sites at which vaccination of badgers for bTB was being carried out and government policy was to phase out culling and place more emphasis on vaccination schemes. The proposed cull was controversial, including with those who were carrying out the vaccination schemes, and with whom the government wished to build closer links.

On the basis of these and other considerations, the Secretary of State issued the direction – which NE was required to follow – in essence vetoing the grant of the licence.    

The claimants challenged the decision to issue the direction on three grounds (all of which ultimately failed) –

  1. unlawful departure from policy in the form of the Guidance,
  2. frustration of a legitimate expectation, and
  3. Wednesbury unreasonableness (encompassing irrationality and an alleged failure to take into account relevant considerations (and vice versa)).

The first two grounds related to the fact that the second claimant met the requirements set out in the Guidance and had reasonably assumed that it would therefore be granted a licence.

The Court held that the extent of any policy reflected in the Guidance was that licences to cull would only be granted to those who could meet the stipulated requirements of an effective, safe and humane cull by satisfying the criteria set out in it. However, it did not follow that on fulfilment of those criteria, a person is entitled or guaranteed to obtain a licence as the Guidance itself did not mandate that the grant of a licence must follow in such circumstances.

NE needed only to have regard to the Guidance and, taken together with the way in which the Guidance was framed, retained a discretion to refuse a licence even to an applicant who met the stated requirements.

However, the more fundamental point was that the Guidance related to decisions made by NE, not those of the SofS. It could not bind the latter save to the extent that where the SofS herself made a licencing decision it could be said to articulate government policy as to how such decisions should be taken. In this case the SofS was not making a licensing decision, but exercising a power to direct NE not to grant licences in a particular area. Although it had the same result as the SofS refusing the licence, that result was achieved using a different legal route, and one that was harder to challenge. 

In relation to legitimate expectation, the Court held that there was nothing in the Guidance which amounted to a clear and unequivocal promise that an applicant who applies for a licence in an accepted area and fulfils the Guidance requirements will be granted a licence, thus there was no legitimate expectation. Nor was there anything to suggest that the only relevant criteria that would be considered in deciding whether to grant a licence were those set out in the Guidance. Even though the claimants had good reason to believe they would get a licence, this was insufficient to found a legitimate expectation.

Indeed, even had such an expectation arisen, the Court held that this was probably an occasion on which the government could have lawfully departed from it, given that the decision taken was undoubtedly a political one involving the weighing of numerous policy factors.

Regarding the challenge of irrationality, it was for the SofS to decide what factors to take into account, and unless a factor was so obviously material or immaterial to the decision that no rational decision maker could have ignored it, the choice of relevant factors could not be questioned. Furthermore, the decision to issue the Direction itself had not been Wednesbury unreasonable.

Again highlighting the political grounds for the decision, it was considered that however compelling the case for permitting the licence issued appeared on other grounds, the SofS legitimately and responsibly concluded that no licences should be granted in Derbyshire for the year of 2019. Importantly, this did not preclude an application being made the following year when the position, and Guidance, may have changed.

Thus, under the decision-making hierarchy established by the 2006 Act, the SofS lawfully used her powers to issue the direction to NE as to the exercise of its delegated functions and NE was therefore bound to refuse the second claimant’s application.

Kieran Laird, John Cooper and Ravi Randhawa

Filed Under: Public Law & Regulation Tagged With: 3., badger culling, Environment, natural england, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Wednesbury unreasonableness

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Transferring data out of China? Understand the key points from the Chinese Standard Contractual Clauses
  • Getting ready for pensions dashboards
  • Unified Patent Court to start on 1 June 2023 as Germany ratifies

Tags

apprenticeships (5) Artificial Intelligence (AI) (52) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (18) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (14) brand protection (5) Brands and designs (5) Brexit (23) china (5) Climate change (12) COP26 (11) Copyright (8) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (5) Data protection (6) Employment (13) employment law (9) Environment (8) ESG (21) ESG and pensions (9) financial services (5) Intellectual Property (59) IP (9) Life sciences (6) net zero (6) Patents (28) Pensions (41) Pension scams (5) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (11) Pensions dashboards (7) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (31) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (16) Retail (6) sustainability (7) Tech (45) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (13) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (24) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

LoupedIn is the Official Gowling WLG Blog. Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2023 Gowling WLG

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT