High Court Delays Decision on Natural England's Bid to Triple Badger Trust Costs Ahead of December Hearing.

Badger Trust’s court hearing on legal costs in our case with Wild Justice against 2024 badger cull licences has been delayed.

Natural England aims to set a legal precedent by altering the cost cap established under the Aarhus Convention. 

The purpose of the caps is to ensure that costs do not prevent charities from seeking justice. If Natural England succeeds in setting this precedent, it could affect every future case brought by a charity seeking to challenge an unjust government decision.

Natural England, in an apparent attempt to intimidate Badger Trust, is seeking to increase the limit on adverse costs from £10,000 to £30,000, and for our partners at Wild Justice, from £10,000 to £20,000.

Intimidation tactics sometimes fail, of course. In this case, we have decided to firmly reject this attempt to pressure us into discontinuing our joint action.

The Aarhus Convention empowers individuals and organisations by safeguarding the public’s right to access information, participate in decision-making, and seek justice in environmental matters. This vital framework reinforces our right to engage with public authorities and insists on transparency in these critical issues.

The £10,000 standard Aarhus cap effectively functions as a quid pro quo: if we win, our recoverable costs will be substantially lower than in cases not covered by the Aarhus Convention.

Although our hearing has been postponed until October due to scheduling conflicts and an overrunning case, the main substantive hearing for our challenge is confirmed for December. Despite these delays, our resolve remains unwavering, and we look forward to presenting our case in court.

Rosie Wood, Chair of Badger Trust, commented: 

Judicial reviews should only ever be considered by charities on very narrow grounds; they cannot be used as a means to challenge scientific evidence - the High Court isn’t equipped to judge such matters. Therefore, we chose our grounds carefully, and our case is not about science but about the lawfulness of a decision-making process. Without the hearing, we could not release the evidence we've held for over a year. It has become evident that Natural England and DEFRA would prefer it not be made public, but we believe it deserves to be seen by farmers, parliamentarians, and taxpayers who ultimately fund government decisions.

 If Natural England succeeds in setting this precedent, it could affect every future case brought by a charity seeking to challenge an unjust government decision.