I guess that because the request was made by a single long term critic and non BASC member he answered that person in as short a form as possible through politeness. Thus saving his time (and therefore BASC members money).
BASC hails High Court decision as a victory for the countryside
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
baguio
Well-Known Member
He didn't reply to anyone. He made a statement. How has it saved BASC any money? I would assume that David is on a salary? Paid whether he's working or kicking back. He shouldn't have been replying at all. He should have posted that right at the start IMO, thus potentially gaining members rather than fighting the derogatory commenters! BTW, you will find no previous comments from me criticising BASC so don't bother looking.
Seems to me that the outcome of this is not a knockout for either side but a points decision where both parties got a little something to crow about (sorry couldn't help the pun).
But at least that is better than simply capitulating under a bit of pressure as has been the MO in recent times. I get that sometimes you have to choose your battles, but WJ it would appear don't seem to do that. They will throw all their efforts behind any action where there's a small chance of success. No doubt on the premise that judges will come to the conclusion they can't dismiss them all the time or it might seem as though they are biased.
But at least that is better than simply capitulating under a bit of pressure as has been the MO in recent times. I get that sometimes you have to choose your battles, but WJ it would appear don't seem to do that. They will throw all their efforts behind any action where there's a small chance of success. No doubt on the premise that judges will come to the conclusion they can't dismiss them all the time or it might seem as though they are biased.
I would agree with you but what part did NRW play in the reasonableness of the GL's ? Or was it all BASC's work ? Somehow, on past form, I doubt the latter. However, everyone can view this as they see fit - as do I.
I wonder also if BASC's evidence was, in part, supplied by GWCT since they study whilst others do not necessarily to the detail a judge would consider 'influential'.
That would be humorous!
Thanks chaps. I feel like I should say that I didn't do the summary as a dig at BASC's response but simply because I like to get it from the horses mouth when it comes to these things, the spin machines have been working on all sides but I really hoped this was as good as BASC claimed. Seeing as I'd read it, it made sense to do a summary. As it is, I think it is about as good as could be hoped for. BASC/NFU etc were never going to get anything out of this, apart from having WJ's claims dismissed which was achieved.
@Pedro, for once I do think this is a knockout (at least as much as could be achieved given the limitations of a JR). They brought a JR with 3 pleaded arguments, none of which were accepted.
@kes, the reasonableness is for NRW, as they are the statutory body charged with making the decision. I stand to be corrected but I believe BASC said they did give some 'pointers' to NRW but I have no idea of the extent to which they were, or were not, acted upon. What BASC can take credit for is that some of their legal arguments were referred to in the judgment so their time hasn't been wasted (as it might have been if the Judge gave his reasons without referring to their argument).
I had meant to mention costs in my summary. There is nothing stated in the judgment but Counsel were invited to make written argument in relation to points such as the final order (which is the Court document which formally disposes of the case) and it would be usual to make costs arguments at that stage. That said, I am not quite sure of the precise approach to costs on a JR, which is a little different to standard litigation where you would expect the loser to pay. I can imagine that BASC would struggle to get costs as they were an 'interested party', so it could be said that their decision to incur costs was entirely theirs. NRW, however, didn't have that choice and so I would hope they seek costs if at all possible.
@Pedro, for once I do think this is a knockout (at least as much as could be achieved given the limitations of a JR). They brought a JR with 3 pleaded arguments, none of which were accepted.
@kes, the reasonableness is for NRW, as they are the statutory body charged with making the decision. I stand to be corrected but I believe BASC said they did give some 'pointers' to NRW but I have no idea of the extent to which they were, or were not, acted upon. What BASC can take credit for is that some of their legal arguments were referred to in the judgment so their time hasn't been wasted (as it might have been if the Judge gave his reasons without referring to their argument).
I had meant to mention costs in my summary. There is nothing stated in the judgment but Counsel were invited to make written argument in relation to points such as the final order (which is the Court document which formally disposes of the case) and it would be usual to make costs arguments at that stage. That said, I am not quite sure of the precise approach to costs on a JR, which is a little different to standard litigation where you would expect the loser to pay. I can imagine that BASC would struggle to get costs as they were an 'interested party', so it could be said that their decision to incur costs was entirely theirs. NRW, however, didn't have that choice and so I would hope they seek costs if at all possible.
Enjoyed the summary andyk. This is a knockout. For me the key point from this judgment is (quoting you)
Obviously this is the case for any JR (though adding procedural impropriety and maybe legitimate expectation and breach of the HRA). The burden on the claimant in JR is really high and the legislation is clearly intended to grant the secretary of state very broad powers (the secretary of state "shall not grant a licence for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1) unless it is satisfied that, as regards that purpose, there is no other satisfactory solution"). That's very different from being satisfied that there is no other possible solution and is clearly a grant of discretion to the SoS.
The "victory" claimed by WJ was really just the judge saying anyone shooting outside of the general licenses is committing an offence, which is meaningless - anyone shooting outside the terms of the licenses would always have been committing an offence. The specific example of only shooting crows during the nesting season is pretty obviously nonsense too, it's like saying you can only start to build a dam after the flood has begun.
This decision really highlights what a dropped ball caving on the first case was.
Obviously this is the case for any JR (though adding procedural impropriety and maybe legitimate expectation and breach of the HRA). The burden on the claimant in JR is really high and the legislation is clearly intended to grant the secretary of state very broad powers (the secretary of state "shall not grant a licence for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1) unless it is satisfied that, as regards that purpose, there is no other satisfactory solution"). That's very different from being satisfied that there is no other possible solution and is clearly a grant of discretion to the SoS.
The "victory" claimed by WJ was really just the judge saying anyone shooting outside of the general licenses is committing an offence, which is meaningless - anyone shooting outside the terms of the licenses would always have been committing an offence. The specific example of only shooting crows during the nesting season is pretty obviously nonsense too, it's like saying you can only start to build a dam after the flood has begun.
This decision really highlights what a dropped ball caving on the first case was.
David.
Waste of time me reading 14 pages of legal speak. May as well be written in Hebrew. Would it have been too much for someone at BASC to give a summary akin to the one that andyk very kindly did?
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
Well matey I'd just like to say a big thank you for taking the time and effort to put this all into layman terms for the likes of myself who can't even understand the gas bill when it's written,
Many thanks
Jimmy
There is only one problem with BASC giving a summary. There are a lot of people, on here and elsewhere, who are so biased about the BASC that they would have rubbished the summary on the grounds that if BASC had written it it must be a lie.
David.
I would say they have earned their poor reputation - my request was for a third party assessment - BASC are always overestimating their own importance to shooting so no, I would not trust a BASC assessment of very much - almost anyone else, probably a lot more.
Things do change but it wont simply take a single issue for me to change my view - I wont list the failures they are known to many, perhaps not so important to you ?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC published a blog with further interpretation yesterday:
basc.org.uk
A reason to celebrate, or a time to reflect on failed challenges? - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
It’s almost two years since the launch of Wild Justice, but what are the implications of their latest defeat in the High Court?
basc.org.uk
terrier1
Well-Known Member
And why do you think they are biased. In my case I was a long standing member who asked for some help and didn't get any.
richard griffith
Well-Known Member
thanks for pointing out my misplaced credit.Andyk thank you
From the WJ website blog:
4. What does this mean for England where DEFRA have, after a consultation, issued similar general licences for similar purposes? There is one important difference in the conservation licence for England as the NRW licence stipulates that it is to protect eggs and/or chicks from corvids whereas the DEFRA licence does not have that same helpful and biologically realistic detail (of eggs and chicks) attached to it. Wild Justice has asked DEFRA for clarification of whether DEFRA believes that its licence can lawfully be used outside the breeding season for those species alleged to be protected by its conservation licence (and whether it regards corvid killing at all locations as being authorised by their licence) – as yet DEFRA has failed to clarify these points which now require urgent clarification by DEFRA for England just as they do by NRW in Wales.
As it is a general licence, perhaps it would be preferable for NRW to remove the reference to eggs and chicks as this reference is what potentially restricts the time of year that the corvids can be controlled.
4. What does this mean for England where DEFRA have, after a consultation, issued similar general licences for similar purposes? There is one important difference in the conservation licence for England as the NRW licence stipulates that it is to protect eggs and/or chicks from corvids whereas the DEFRA licence does not have that same helpful and biologically realistic detail (of eggs and chicks) attached to it. Wild Justice has asked DEFRA for clarification of whether DEFRA believes that its licence can lawfully be used outside the breeding season for those species alleged to be protected by its conservation licence (and whether it regards corvid killing at all locations as being authorised by their licence) – as yet DEFRA has failed to clarify these points which now require urgent clarification by DEFRA for England just as they do by NRW in Wales.
As it is a general licence, perhaps it would be preferable for NRW to remove the reference to eggs and chicks as this reference is what potentially restricts the time of year that the corvids can be controlled.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
Wow just read this from the above.
This particular battle cost us in excess of £140,000 but, at a cost of just under £1 per member, it was money well spent to give our community a voice in court.
Looks like the penny may have dropped.
I may rejoin.
If they sort out the police licensing I will REJOIN
This particular battle cost us in excess of £140,000 but, at a cost of just under £1 per member, it was money well spent to give our community a voice in court.
Looks like the penny may have dropped.
I may rejoin.
If they sort out the police licensing I will REJOIN
Similar threads
