Read on Twitter
Why Wild Justice's case was a TOTAL failure.
Today the high court released its ruling in Wild Justice's challenge to the General licence in Wales. The pressure group had claimed that the licences were unlawfully issued. The legal basis of this claim is exceedingly complex 1/9
Today the high court released its ruling in Wild Justice's challenge to the General licence in Wales. The pressure group had claimed that the licences were unlawfully issued. The legal basis of this claim is exceedingly complex 1/9
But it is sufficient to say that the court rejected it. WJ claimed the license were unlawful on three grounds. The Judge rejected all three. The licences are lawfully issued. This is not in dispute.
However WJ have tried to spin this as a partial victory 2/9
However WJ have tried to spin this as a partial victory 2/9
Wild Justice have made two distinct further claims of success. The first is that the judgement in the case "further limits the casual killing of birds under general licences and has implications for general licences in other parts of the UK". This is untrue. 3/9
The second claim is that "Our [WJ's] challenge failed to persuade the court that the licences were unlawful, but succeeded in proscribing much killing that goes on". This is even more untrue. 4/9
This is complicated... In the judgement there is one paragraph which discusses the use of the conservation licence for 'present risks' . Essentially it says that according to NRW the licence could only be used to deal with a present threat 5/9
WJ have claimed that this is either a change or a clarification in the law. It is neither. It is just a description of what NRW thought the terms of the licence already were. These were the terms of the licence before WJ ever brought their case. 6/9
Mark Avery Asked me if it was legal to shoot a crow in Wales to protect a Curlew today. The answer is no. But that is nothing to do with his case. It was illegal in December, in November in October, in September. That has not changed. 7/9
Nor has the law been clarified. What has been clarified is the licence terms not the underlying law. Because NRW says their licences were only for 'present risks'. The question of issuing a licence for a 'potential risk' was never even considered 8/9
The case has been a total failure, it has changed nothing all that has happened is that the existing terms of the licences have been clarified That is all. It is the most expensive press release in Welsh history. 9/9
