BASC hails High Court decision as a victory for the countryside

[andyk]

@Mickeydredd - if they think that is what the Court said then they need better lawyers (or to listen to them). The Court didn't say that the NRW licenses were only just legal, or anything like that. It basically said that, so long as the authority is not unreasonable in how it words the licenses, and has grounds for its decision making, then it is not for WJ to come along and start having arguments about the precise wording used. Yet that seems to be what they are doing!

I would also agree with you that NRW probably can remove the reference to eggs and chicks relying on the fact that the Court agreed it was appropriate to put onus on the user to ensure compliance. That way, it would be for the user to decide if control outside the breeding season remained appropriate for the objective of protecting at risk species.

 

[kes]

Apart from a considerable uplift in quality of response to threats and active strategic planning and good lawyers and QC's, BASC need to tone down the rhetoric " BASC slays the opposition" et al. Most shooters I know are quiet people who just want to carry on with what they do with their hard-earned knowledge.
Shouting our success down someone's ear when not wholly justified is a bit " fur coat and no knickers" as we said up norf.

 

[baguio]

Apart from a considerable uplift in quality of response to threats and active strategic planning and good lawyers and QC's, BASC need to tone down the rhetoric " BASC slays the opposition" et al. Most shooters I know are quiet people who just want to carry on with what they do with their hard-earned knowledge.
Shouting our success down someone's ear when not wholly justified is a bit " fur coat and no knickers" as we said up norf.

Keeping quiet whilst Packman and Co shout from the roof tops is what got us into this mess and is exactly what WJ want us to do. IMO we need everyone to know what sort of people WJ are and make people aware of the damage that they're doing to rare species.
We as a group need to make more noise rather than hide in the background, being too frightened to stand up for ourselves.

 

[Yorkie]

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.

Hi David.
I take your point about the BASC criticism on the forum but i would still expect them to provide a summary. They are regular contributors to the site so they are not shy.

 

[Mickeydredd]

But all BASC were doing on this thread was effectively releasing a press statement, in line with their usual policy, they may or may not have provided a suitable summary at a later date.

 

[CarlW]

We have a summary and it seems our side won. Let's all celebrate that, surely!

We can come back to fighting about how terrible or wonderful BASC are on another day...

 

[kes]

Keeping quiet whilst Packman and Co shout from the roof tops is what got us into this mess and is exactly what WJ want us to do. IMO we need everyone to know what sort of people WJ are and make people aware of the damage that they're doing to rare species.
We as a group need to make more noise rather than hide in the background, being too frightened to stand up for ourselves.

The point I am trying to make is yes, expose WJ, as they are strangers to the truth but when shooting succeeds, be a bit more 'inevitable' about it and less "yea, yae we did it". We all know what we espouse is right and we are not the vandals WJ suggest but nobody (in my book) is impressed by "crowing" loudly when, e.g. in this case, many shooters submitted evidence - I did. There is a weight of knowledge behind what "we" say e.g. CGWT's funding of PhD research into magpie predation. My point is we need more humble "we told you so" and less of a hooray henry approach which endears no-one to our cause.
If you cant see that then you are right to be one of BASC's "born again" shooters.

 

[Liveonce]

This I believe is where WJ are claiming a victory

Mr Corner QC with Ms Sargent, on behalf of NRW, submit that the licences only authorise action where there is a present risk to the stated interests. Thus, in the example given above NRW accepts that the relevant licence (004) should be used only to kill crows during the months between egg laying and when the chicks are well grown, namely April to July, and only in those areas where curlews nest, which do not extend to urban areas. It should not permit someone to kill a crow in the autumn or in an urban area on the basis that that bird might someday at some place take a curlew’s egg or chick. NRW has decided not to set out this level of detail in the licences, saying that it is for the licensee to show by objective evidence that an egg or chick was at real risk to justify the killing, and it is for the criminal courts to assess the evidence in any given case. NRW says that it is a matter of judgment for it as the appropriate authority in Wales to decide on the appropriate level of detail set out in the licences.

So GL004 can only be used between April to July and only where curlew’s nest, is it legal to kill crows to protect curlew’s. Outside those months and areas it looks to be illegal to kill crows under GL004.

WJ claim to be fighting for nature, yet Curlew’s have to be in “present risk” before crow numbers can be controlled.

Hopefully BASC will confirm exactly the impact of the above.

 

[catzrob]

Hopefully BASC will confirm exactly the impact of the above.

This is covered in the judgment. Basically you have to actually be shooting for a purpose covered by a GL - so shooting corvids in an urban setting far from curlew nesting grounds or outside the noted times can't be justified as necessary to protect eggs/young birds because it won't have any actual impact on curlew populations. Of course it might be justified by another purpose set out in another GL.

The central point is that the law hasn't changed - a restatement of long settled law is not a win for NJ.

An example case is given in the judgment. It is from 2002, so presumably covers events that actually happened some time between ~ '98 and '01, long before WJ got involved. Someone shooting starlings in summer on the basis that starlings han be a hazard to public health was convicted because starlings aren't a public health hazard in summer.

It would be wrong to read too much into this - both the curlew example and the starling case relate to narrow licenses allowing shooting to manage narrow risks (curlews nesting, starlings as public health hazards) that are relatively easily managed.

I seems reasonably obvious that (for example) pigeon control needn't/can't be limited to times when there are crops in the field (a) because of the practicality of shooting at that time and (b) because the volume of pigeons in this country is so high that their numbers couldn't be effectively controlled if such a limitation was imposed. Basically, you have to plan ahead! For more easily controlled species like starlings an actual present risk is needed to justify shooting.

WJ wanted times/circumstances when lethal control could be used set out in more details out in the licenses, and the judge basically said "no: those limitations exist anyway; there's no obligation to make the licenses narrow and wordy; and doing so might narrow the GLs too far for them to be useful.

The judgment also goes into quite a lot of detail on the point that unless a protected species is endangered by the issuing of a GL (clearly not the case with species covered by GLs) the discretion of NRW/NE to issue GL's is quite broad and the GLs shouldn't be interpreted narrowly.

An illustration of how licences circumscribed by reference to statutory purposes under section 16 apply in practice is given in RSPCA v Cundey [2002] Env LR 17. The licence there under consideration specified that it permitted the killing of listed wild birds for the purposes of protecting wild birds or public health or air safety. Mr Cundey relied on this licence to shoot starlings in the summer months to protect public health. He was convicted by magistrates of an offence under the 1981 Act, who found it was almost unheard of for starlings to pose such a risk during the summer. His appeal by way of case stated was considered by Silber J. At paragraph 22, after referring to that finding, Silber J concluded that the licence in that case did not provide any defence to the prosecution.

The submissions of NRW and the interested parties continue that if action is not taken for the purpose or one of the purposes specified in the licence, then such action is not within its terms. Thus, for example, if there is no evidence that a particular species damages crops, then anyone killing a bird of that species could not claim to be doing so for the purpose of avoiding such harm. That was the basis upon which the prosecution in RSPCA v Cundey succeeded, that it was almost unheard of that starlings pose a risk to public health in the summer months. If there is no risk of the harm identified in the licences or taking action would not avert the risk, or no connection between the killing and the harm identified, then the licence will not avail those purporting to rely upon it. NRW’s judgment that it is not necessary to set further circumstances out in the licences, for example as to temporal or spatial limitation, is well within the wide margin given to environmental regulators making scientific or technical judgments. Licences need not, and probably could not, cover all potential factual permutations when it is necessary to kill wild birds to protect other wild birds, or crops or livestock.

As shown in RSPCA v Cundey, the question of whether [a particular episode of shooting] is for [a purpose permitted by a general licence] is likely to involve evidential issues of the sort which the criminal courts are well experienced in dealing with.

 

[andyk]

I'm inclined to agree with @kes on this occasion. Whilst I don't have quite his level of cynicism about BASC, many of their recent press releases and blogs are too heavy on rhetoric and lacking in facts.

I have been encouraged by their recent and apparent willingness to 'take the fight' to our opponents and not just to work on their previous model of keeping quite and carrying on in the hope things would go away/they could just have a chat with an MP they'd taken shooting.

However, and personally, I don't appreciate the gloating and sometimes quite personal tone they have been taking. This situation is a perfect example, the Court threw out WJ's claim and their blog could focus on the facts and implications of their loss along with the harm they have done. There isn't a need for the crowing or semi-personal attacks on Packham and others (I despise them, so that isn't because of any love for them, only that a large shooting organisation throwing punches isn't a good look for any non-shooter looking in). I also don't get the point about COVID meaning WJ shouldn't have brought their claim. Come on, NRW is not the NHS. They shouldn't have brought their claim because it's sh*te and did untold damage to the populations of the kinds of species they should be really concerned about.

It's quite possible for BASC (or any other org) to fully stand up for its members without resorting to that behaviour. Fight them, and fight them some more, but do it with articles, blogs and anything else which are filled with facts and evidence. Otherwise, it simply looks like we're on the back foot and can do nothing more than lash out.

 

[kes]

I'm inclined to agree with @kes on this occasion. Whilst I don't have quite his level of cynicism about BASC, many of their recent press releases and blogs are too heavy on rhetoric and lacking in facts.

I have been encouraged by their recent and apparent willingness to 'take the fight' to our opponents and not just to work on their previous model of keeping quite and carrying on in the hope things would go away/they could just have a chat with an MP they'd taken shooting.

However, and personally, I don't appreciate the gloating and sometimes quite personal tone they have been taking. This situation is a perfect example, the Court threw out WJ's claim and their blog could focus on the facts and implications of their loss along with the harm they have done. There isn't a need for the crowing or semi-personal attacks on Packham and others (I despise them, so that isn't because of any love for them, only that a large shooting organisation throwing punches isn't a good look for any non-shooter looking in). I also don't get the point about COVID meaning WJ shouldn't have brought their claim. Come on, NRW is not the NHS. They shouldn't have brought their claim because it's sh*te and did untold damage to the populations of the kinds of species they should be really concerned about.

It's quite possible for BASC (or any other org) to fully stand up for its members without resorting to that behaviour. Fight them, and fight them some more, but do it with articles, blogs and anything else which are filled with facts and evidence. Otherwise, it simply looks like we're on the back foot and can do nothing more than lash out.

Thank you for expressing the feelings a number of us share perhaps better than I could have done.
I would very much like BASC to succeed as I have said before, however, unless they open their eyes to what and who and (here) how they are representing shooting they simply wont. I am cynical sadly but experience is at the root of that feeling, tempered by BASC's willingness to, and indications of, change. Everyone can and will make up their own minds.

 

[merlin]

I'm inclined to agree with @kes on this occasion. Whilst I don't have quite his level of cynicism about BASC, many of their recent press releases and blogs are too heavy on rhetoric and lacking in facts.

I have been encouraged by their recent and apparent willingness to 'take the fight' to our opponents and not just to work on their previous model of keeping quite and carrying on in the hope things would go away/they could just have a chat with an MP they'd taken shooting.

However, and personally, I don't appreciate the gloating and sometimes quite personal tone they have been taking. This situation is a perfect example, the Court threw out WJ's claim and their blog could focus on the facts and implications of their loss along with the harm they have done. There isn't a need for the crowing or semi-personal attacks on Packham and others (I despise them, so that isn't because of any love for them, only that a large shooting organisation throwing punches isn't a good look for any non-shooter looking in). I also don't get the point about COVID meaning WJ shouldn't have brought their claim. Come on, NRW is not the NHS. They shouldn't have brought their claim because it's sh*te and did untold damage to the populations of the kinds of species they should be really concerned about.

It's quite possible for BASC (or any other org) to fully stand up for its members without resorting to that behaviour. Fight them, and fight them some more, but do it with articles, blogs and anything else which are filled with facts and evidence. Otherwise, it simply looks like we're on the back foot and can do nothing more than lash out.

Excellent post.

 

[richard griffith]

Bearing in mind the complexity/general lack of understanding of the General Licences I think BASC could do a lot worse than compile an aide memoir on what you can and cannot do summary for all members, reflecting the subtle differences that exist in each home Nation on rules and quarry species.

 

[FreshFace]

I'm inclined to agree with @kes on this occasion. Whilst I don't have quite his level of cynicism about BASC, many of their recent press releases and blogs are too heavy on rhetoric and lacking in facts.

I have been encouraged by their recent and apparent willingness to 'take the fight' to our opponents and not just to work on their previous model of keeping quite and carrying on in the hope things would go away/they could just have a chat with an MP they'd taken shooting.

However, and personally, I don't appreciate the gloating and sometimes quite personal tone they have been taking. This situation is a perfect example, the Court threw out WJ's claim and their blog could focus on the facts and implications of their loss along with the harm they have done. There isn't a need for the crowing or semi-personal attacks on Packham and others (I despise them, so that isn't because of any love for them, only that a large shooting organisation throwing punches isn't a good look for any non-shooter looking in). I also don't get the point about COVID meaning WJ shouldn't have brought their claim. Come on, NRW is not the NHS. They shouldn't have brought their claim because it's sh*te and did untold damage to the populations of the kinds of species they should be really concerned about.

It's quite possible for BASC (or any other org) to fully stand up for its members without resorting to that behaviour. Fight them, and fight them some more, but do it with articles, blogs and anything else which are filled with facts and evidence. Otherwise, it simply looks like we're on the back foot and can do nothing more than lash out.

AndyK for BASC council.
Great post.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC has published two blogs with further interpretation following the outcome of the judicial review.

Wild Justice’s catalogue of failures grow again - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Another failed judicial review for Wild Justice shows there is no reason to be scared of this radical group.

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

For free BASC advice on the general licences in each home country visit:

General licences

All the latest news and advice concerning general licences and how they affect you.

basc.org.uk

BASC members can avail of further advice by email or over the phone.

 

[andyk]

I quite like Matt Cross's guest blogs and think he has previously done a good job of challenging WJ, in particularly Avery, on twitter. His blog is more of the kind of thing I like to see, not holding back but with a bit more substance and less rhetoric.

Unfortunately, it isn't true (in the real, not legal) sense to say that WJ have achieved no change in the law as Garry does. While no Court has ruled that a General License was illegal, they were revoked for a period and the new licenses do not permit activity which would have been permitted under the old licenses.

 

[kes]

Some reading for those who want to;

ourt of Appeal clarifies the scope of unsuccessful parties' liability for pre-permission costs in statutory review and judicial review claims

Campaign to Protect Rural England – Kent Branch v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230

www.fieldfisher.com

 

[Mickeydredd]

google has been getting hammered again I see.....