Badger Trust gives evidence to judicial review on cull

Copywright Oast House archive

Badger Trust gives evidence to judicial review on cull4

Governance | Kirsty Weakley | 26 Jun 2012

The High Court yesterday heard evidence from the Badger Trust for the judicial review, brought by the charity, into the government’s decision to cull badgers.

The case is being heard before Mr Justice Ouseley and the court will continue to hear evidence today, with a decision expected in the next few weeks.

Jack Reedy, spokesman for the Badger Trust, told that the case could cost the charity “at least £100,000” in legal fees.

Chairman of the Badger Trust David Williams said: “We stand alone in initiating this action and raising funds for it.”

The Trust is funded by contributions from local badger groups as well as donations from members of the public. In its last financial year (January 2011 to December 2011) it had an income of £120,000, according to accounts filed with the Charity Commission.

He added: “The Trust acts on behalf of local badger groups across the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and we see it as our duty to use all legal means of persuasion and scientific argument to overturn this decision which risks making a bad situation even worse.”

Legal case

The Badger Trust is asking the court to overturn the Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs, Caroline Spelman’s decision to authorise the culling of badgers, on the grounds that it is legally flawed.

Trust solicitor, Gwendolen Morgan of Bindmans LLP, said: “First, the proposed badger cull will cause rather than prevent disease in cattle. This fails the legal test for licensing.

"Second, in terms of its cost-benefit analysis, Defra made a decision on basis A, when in reality the plan may well be rolled out on basis B. As a matter of public law, that is unlawful. Finally, the guidance to Natural England is legally flawed.”

The cost/impact assessment carried out by Defra was only based on the farmer free-shooting option and did not allow for the possibility that this may be ruled out for being inhumane, meaning that farmers would be obliged to use the more costly method of trap and shoot.

It argues that because killing badgers was not one of Natural England’s original functions, and that under section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, responsibility for culling badgers is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

A judicial review of a similar decision to cull badgers by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2010 found in favour of the charity and in March 2012 the Assembly announced it would vaccinate all badgers.

Defra announced in December 2011 that it would authorise Natural England to issue licenses to cull badgers to tackle bovine tuberculosis. The Badger Trust announced its decision to take legal action in February was granted a the judicial revue in April 2012.

A Defra spokeswoman said the government could not comment on the court case but that: “Bovine TB is a chronic and devastating disease. It forced the slaughter of 25,000 cattle in 2010 alone, and is taking a terrible toll on our farmers and rural communities.

“Nobody wants to cull badgers. But no country in the world where wildlife carries TB has eradicated the disease in cattle without tackling it in wildlife too. We are investing in the development of usable vaccines but sadly these are still years away, and we have to take action now.

“Unless TB is effectively dealt with it will cost taxpayers around £1bn over the next ten years.”


Patricia & Nigel Hall
28 Jun 2012

Defra keep rolling out the same old chestnut. This government seems obsessed with destroying Britain's wildlife. Caroline Spelman and James Paice (Cameron's chosen Defra ministers) continually state that 25,000 cattle are killed every year because of bTB. However, this number pales into insignificance when compared to the numbers slaughtered through infertility, mastitis and lameness. Defra have not listened to the science which clearly and independently states that culling badgers could make matters worse. Many farmers are continuing to ignore the advice given to them by the Independent Scientific Group. But many farmers are also against the cull. We applaud the Welsh Government for opting for vaccination which also disproves Spelman's remark about vaccine not being available.

David Sanders
self employed
27 Jun 2012

Unless TB is " EFFECTIVELY " dealt with,will cost £1bn over 10 years. The vital word is " EFFECTIVELY ". A cull or masacre over 10 years is accepted by all sides to only reduce TB by about 15%. That means that in 10 years,
after the death of thousands of badgers, the TB problem will still be 85% as bad as it is now. What a waste of life, time, resources. It can be compared with the futile and cruel waste of life, fighting in the trenches in World War 1 !
Vaccination is humane, scientific and ACCURATE, unlike blasting with guns and the inevitable badgers who will get wounded and will either die in agony or spread TB by pertubation.If a fox,dog or cat eats the dying badger, they may become the new vectors of TB.Along with vaccination, farmers need to tighten biosecurity,shop those breaking the rules and be checked they worm against liver fluke.

27 Jun 2012

DEFRA is INCORRECT that "no country in the world where wildlife carries TB has eradicated the disease in cattle without tackling it in wildlife too."

SCOTLAND is such a country - as DEFRA must know. Scotland is Eu-certified as bovine-TB free and has NEVER culled (= killed) a single badger.

Testing regimes are much stricter in Scotland than in England and biosecurity is also very much better.


Graham Shepherd
27 Jun 2012

Why is Defra still saying that we need a usable vaccine?
We have got one already in use on badgers by the Welsh government, National Trust, various wildlife organisations and Badger Trust.

Why does Defra always open with a statement about how serious is the disease as though that is proof that a cull will help significantly. The truth is that it could reduce cattle TB by up to 16% over 9 years.

It is the Yes Minister syndrome.
"Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it!"


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear


  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.


Free eNews

Sector must address gap between public perception of charities and the truth, says Sir Stuart Etherington

28 Jan 2015

Public perception of what charities do can be very different to the truth and an "intelligent engagement...

Caron Bradshaw: ‘I think we took on too much too quickly’

28 Jan 2015

The chief executive of the Charity Finance Group, Caron Bradshaw, said yesterday that her charity took...

WWF UK’s total income rose seven per cent in 2014 financial year

27 Jan 2015

WWF UK's total income for the year ending June 2014 rose to £62.2m, an increase of £3.8m, or seven per...

Charities who ignore 'no cold callers' signs are not in breach of Iof Code of Practice, says FRSB

29 Jan 2015

Doorstep fundraisers can ignore “no cold callers” signs without breaching the Code of Fundraising...

Macmillan Coffee Morning raises record breaking £25m

29 Jan 2015

Macmillan’s flagship fundraising event, the World's Biggest Coffee Morning, has beaten its previous...

BP donations to Tate 'embarrassingly small' say campaigners

27 Jan 2015

An arts charity has criticised the Tate for accepting an “embarrassingly small” amount of money from...

NGO domain pages will launch in May

28 Jan 2015

The Public Interest Registry will make the .ngo generic top-level domain name generally available from...

Comparison website for special needs services launched by charity consortium

23 Jan 2015

A coalition of social care charities has launched a TripAdvisor-style website, designed to help families...

CRUK debuts contactless giving through shop windows

21 Jan 2015

Cancer Research UK has announced a collaboration with outdoor media owner Clear Channel to bring contactless...

Join the discussion


Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.

>> Find out more <<