High Court allows BASC to join Welsh general licences judicial review

New Avon Arms
C

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Following a legal challenge by BASC, the High Court has overturned an earlier decision to deny the association ‘interested party’ status in the judicial review on the future of the Welsh general licences.

BASC challenged a ruling in August which denied the UK’s largest shooting organisation the right to join Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in directly fighting the legal challenge brought by the Wild Justice group.

In today’s legal challenge, BASC argued that the shooting community needed direct representation so that the court could fully understand the potential impact of Wild Justice’s claim on conservation and those in the shooting community who manage pest species.

BASC is now gathering written evidence showing why NRW has acted legally in issuing their general licences. No date has been set for the substantive hearing.

Steve Griffiths, BASC’s Wales director, said: “This is a vital victory to give BASC a seat at the table throughout this judicial review. Any decision on the future of general licences requires shootings’ voice, and we are delighted with the decision. It is cases such as this which underline the importance of the Fighting Fund in giving us the clout to fund legal challenges wherever they appear.
Click to expand...
“Work on our written statement has already begun and we are working closely with Defra and NRW to ensure a future proof and fit for purpose set of licences.”

basc.org.uk

High Court allows BASC to join General Licence review - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Earlier decision to block association is overturned following legal challenge.
basc.org.uk basc.org.uk
 
Good work. I must admit I thought BASC were p*ssing in the wind and had screwed their submission up. I eat my words!
 
I wonder if BASC will publish any later evidence/ruling details in this case;- I prefer being advised than being told.

Civil Restraint Orders and Civil Proceedings Orders

4.1. The Court has power to make a civil restraint order (“CRO”) under CPR PD 3C in relation
to any person who has brought claims or made applications considered to be “totally
without merit”. Under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 the Court may make a civil
proceedings order (“CPO”) in respect of a person who has used litigation vexatiously.
4.2. The effect of either of those orders is that the person who is subject to that order must,
before they may commence a judicial review, obtain the permission of the Court to start
the proceedings.
4.3. If a person who is subject to a CRO or CPO fails to make an application for permission
to start proceedings, the application for permission to apply for judicial review (or the
application for an interim or pre-action order) will be dismissed without further order. The
Court may also consider the filing of the application to be a contempt of Court.
4.4. The application to start proceedings is distinct from the application for permission to apply
for judicial review.
 
On another matter, in the legal details, anyone could take a case or support a case where the claimant meets the 30 day rule. So anyone who faces a situation of miss-application of the Guidance e.g. new medical stipulations when they come to renew an FAC which are not in accord with Extant Guidance could legitimately become a claimant for JR - unless of course one believes the defendant will have the LEGAL defence that they may do what they like.
In which case the JR pre-action protocol would weed this out for very little cost.

Claims for judicial review must be started promptly and in any event not later than
3 months after the grounds for making the claim first arose.37 The way to start a
claim is to file a Claim Form that meets the requirements set out in CPR Part 54.
The primary requirement is to start the claim promptly. Even if the claim has been
commenced within three months from the date of the decision challenged, it may
still be out of time if the claimant did not start the claim promptly.38

5.4.4. Extensions of Time
5.4.4.1. CPR 3.1(2)(a) allows the Court to extend or shorten the time limit even
if the time for compliance has already expired.

6. Starting the Claim
6.1. Overview of judicial review procedure
6.1.1. Judicial review is a two-stage process. The first stage is that the claimant must obtain
permission (formerly referred to as “leave”) to apply for judicial review from the
Court. If permission to apply is granted, the second stage is the substantive claim.
6.1.2. Unlike a number of other civil and criminal proceedings the judicial review process
does not incorporate a case management conference (although a CMC may be
ordered by a judge if considered necessary). The Court expects the parties to liaise
with each other and the ACO to ensure that the claim is ready for determination by
the Court. An open dialogue between the parties and the staff of the Administrative
Court Office is essential to the smooth running of any case.

This both 'protects' the court's time and also acts as an advisory route where ANYONE is doubting the validity of a JR for any reason. As may be seen, Its costs are limited.
 
Last edited:
kes said:
I wonder if BASC will publish any later evidence/ruling details in this case;- I prefer being advised than being told.

Civil Restraint Orders and Civil Proceedings Orders

4.1. The Court has power to make a civil restraint order (“CRO”) under CPR PD 3C in relation
to any person who has brought claims or made applications considered to be “totally
without merit”. Under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 the Court may make a civil
proceedings order (“CPO”) in respect of a person who has used litigation vexatiously.
4.2. The effect of either of those orders is that the person who is subject to that order must,
before they may commence a judicial review, obtain the permission of the Court to start
the proceedings.
4.3. If a person who is subject to a CRO or CPO fails to make an application for permission
to start proceedings, the application for permission to apply for judicial review (or the
application for an interim or pre-action order) will be dismissed without further order. The
Court may also consider the filing of the application to be a contempt of Court.
4.4. The application to start proceedings is distinct from the application for permission to apply
for judicial review.
Click to expand...


kes said:
On another matter, in the legal details, anyone could take a case or support a case where the claimant meets the 30 day rule. So anyone who faces a situation of miss-application of the Guidance e.g. new medical stipulations when they come to renew an FAC which are not in accord with Extant Guidance could legitimately become a claimant for JR - unless of course one believes the defendant will have the LEGAL defence that they may do what they like.
In which case the JR pre-action protocol would weed this out for very little cost.

Claims for judicial review must be started promptly and in any event not later than
3 months after the grounds for making the claim first arose.37 The way to start a
claim is to file a Claim Form that meets the requirements set out in CPR Part 54.
The primary requirement is to start the claim promptly. Even if the claim has been
commenced within three months from the date of the decision challenged, it may
still be out of time if the claimant did not start the claim promptly.38

5.4.4. Extensions of Time
5.4.4.1. CPR 3.1(2)(a) allows the Court to extend or shorten the time limit even
if the time for compliance has already expired.

6. Starting the Claim
6.1. Overview of judicial review procedure
6.1.1. Judicial review is a two-stage process. The first stage is that the claimant must obtain
permission (formerly referred to as “leave”) to apply for judicial review from the
Court. If permission to apply is granted, the second stage is the substantive claim.
6.1.2. Unlike a number of other civil and criminal proceedings the judicial review process
does not incorporate a case management conference (although a CMC may be
ordered by a judge if considered necessary). The Court expects the parties to liaise
with each other and the ACO to ensure that the claim is ready for determination by
the Court. An open dialogue between the parties and the staff of the Administrative
Court Office is essential to the smooth running of any case.

This both 'protects' the court's time and also acts as an advisory route where ANYONE is doubting the validity of a JR for any reason. As may be seen, Its costs are limited.
Click to expand...

 
Conor O'Gorman said:
Following a legal challenge by BASC, the High Court has overturned an earlier decision to deny the association ‘interested party’ status in the judicial review on the future of the Welsh general licences.

BASC challenged a ruling in August which denied the UK’s largest shooting organisation the right to join Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in directly fighting the legal challenge brought by the Wild Justice group.

In today’s legal challenge, BASC argued that the shooting community needed direct representation so that the court could fully understand the potential impact of Wild Justice’s claim on conservation and those in the shooting community who manage pest species.

BASC is now gathering written evidence showing why NRW has acted legally in issuing their general licences. No date has been set for the substantive hearing.


“Work on our written statement has already begun and we are working closely with Defra and NRW to ensure a future proof and fit for purpose set of licences.”

basc.org.uk

High Court allows BASC to join General Licence review - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Earlier decision to block association is overturned following legal challenge.
basc.org.uk basc.org.uk
Click to expand...

Well done.....know were is Kes......
 
For those who suggest the cost of JR is prohibitive -

The claimant must obtain permission from the Court to apply for judicial review.
If permission is granted, the claim will usually proceed to a full hearing on those
grounds on which permission has been granted (this is often referred to as the
substantive hearing – see Chapter 10 of this Guide).
8.1.2. In the first instance the claim papers (comprising the papers filed by the claimant
and any Acknowledgment of Service) are sent to a judge. The judge will then
consider the papers and determine whether to grant permission to apply for
judicial review.
8.1.3. The Court will refuse permission to apply for judicial review unless satisfied
that there is an arguable ground for judicial review having a realistic prospect
of success,74 although there are a number of orders the Court can make before
ultimately determining this question (see paragraph 8.2 of this Guide).

Not an expensive phase to justify JR - for anyone with the will and the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BASC and NI licensing increase
2
Replies
25
Views
901
Chris Richardson
C
BASC initiates legal action against Defra over gamebird releasing
Replies
0
Views
275
Conor O'Gorman
C
BASC settles legal challenge with government on gamebird releasing general licence
Replies
2
Views
416
finbar
finbar
BASC condemns proposed firearms fees hike as a threat to public safety
19 20 21
Replies
419
Views
18K
Liveonce
L
Magpie dropped from 2024 Welsh general licences
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
8K
Bo Diddley
Bo Diddley
Shooting Supplies : Ammo - Reloading - Firearms - Optics - Accessories
Back
Top