A Major Win for Shooting: BASC’s High Court Victory Against Natural England

The shooting community has received some very welcome news this week following another significant victory for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) in its legal challenge against Natural England.

On Thursday 3 September, Natural England was refused permission to appeal an earlier High Court judgment which found that the regulator had acted unlawfully in its approach to gamebird release licensing.

The original High Court ruling now takes effect immediately — marking an important moment not only for BASC, but for shoots, estates and rural businesses across the country.

So, what has actually happened?

The case centres around the licensing of pheasants and red-legged partridges on or near certain protected sites in England.

Natural England had introduced conditions affecting the keeping of gamebirds within release pens before their eventual release into the wild.

BASC challenged this approach, arguing that Natural England had interpreted its powers too broadly.

In July, the High Court agreed.

Mr Justice Ritchie ruled that Natural England had acted outside the law by interpreting the meaning of a gamebird being “released” more widely than the legislation passed by Parliament allowed.

The Court concluded that Natural England could not use those particular licensing powers to prevent birds from simply being kept in release pens prior to release.

Natural England's attempt to appeal has now been refused

Following July's judgment, Natural England indicated that it intended to appeal.

However, at a further High Court hearing on 3 September, Mr Justice Ritchie refused Natural England permission to appeal and also rejected its request to delay the effect of the original judgment.

This means the original ruling now comes into force without further delay.

The judge was also particularly critical of an earlier suggestion that licences under review could be withdrawn, describing the threat as tantamount to “bullying.”

He went on to express his hope that Natural England would act professionally and properly moving forward.

Why is this such an important victory?

At its heart, this case establishes a very important principle.

Regulators absolutely have a responsibility to protect wildlife and internationally important habitats — but the powers they use to do so must remain within the boundaries of the law.

Natural England maintains that the licensing restrictions were intended to protect vulnerable wild bird populations, particularly against the risks associated with avian influenza.

However, the High Court found that the particular conditions challenged by BASC went beyond the powers provided by the relevant legislation.

That distinction matters.

This isn't about arguing against conservation. Responsible shooting and conservation have worked alongside each other for generations.

It's about ensuring that decisions affecting shoots, estates and rural livelihoods are lawful, proportionate and properly supported.

The impact goes far beyond the shooting field

One of the most important things to remember is just how many people can be affected when shooting comes under increasing uncertainty.

A shoot isn't simply a group of Guns turning up on a Saturday morning.

Behind it are:

Gamekeepers and land managers.

Beaters and pickers-up.

Farmers and estate workers.

Hotels, pubs and local accommodation.

Game dealers and food businesses.

Gun shops and shooting retailers.

Manufacturers, distributors and suppliers.

Dog trainers and countless other rural services.

BASC said the uncertainty surrounding Natural England's licensing approach had already caused serious difficulties for shoots, with some reportedly forced to close.

When a shoot disappears, the effect can therefore travel considerably further than the estate boundary.

For businesses such as ours, and for many of our customers, a healthy and sustainable shooting community is an important part of maintaining a thriving rural economy.

What does this mean for gamebird releasing?

It's important to be clear that this judgment does not abolish gamebird release licensing.

Licensing requirements continue to apply in certain protected areas.

For example, Natural England currently operates an individual licensing system for the release of pheasants and red-legged partridges on or within 500 metres of relevant Special Protection Areas in England. Other legal requirements also continue to apply.

The High Court case instead concerned the extent of Natural England's legal powers and particular conditions it sought to impose through that system.

That might sound like a technical distinction, but it is an extremely important one.

Public bodies have significant powers, and businesses and individuals should be able to expect those powers to be exercised within the law.

BASC awarded its legal costs

There was another major positive outcome for BASC.

Following the latest hearing, the court awarded BASC 100% of its legal costs, strengthening what was already a significant legal victory for the organisation and its members.

BASC funded the challenge through its Fighting Fund after attempts to resolve the issue directly with Natural England had failed.

Whatever your individual involvement in shooting, having an organisation prepared to challenge decisions through the courts when necessary is significant for the wider community.

But the wider fight isn't over

While this week's judgment is undoubtedly something for the shooting community to welcome, it would be wrong to suggest that all of the challenges facing game shooting have suddenly disappeared.

On the very same day as the latest High Court decision, the government announced a two-month call for evidence on game shooting, which BASC has described as a fight for the future of shooting.

There will therefore be plenty more discussion surrounding the future of the sector.

For now, though, this High Court victory sends an important message:

Conservation matters. Regulation matters. But regulation must also remain lawful, proportionate and accountable.

For shoots, rural businesses and everyone whose livelihood or way of life is connected to the countryside, that is something worth recognising.

Our View

Here at Rural Sports, we welcome a decision that provides greater clarity and stands up for the shooting community.

Shooting contributes far more to rural Britain than what happens in the field on a shoot day. It supports jobs, businesses, land management and communities across the country.

We will continue to follow developments surrounding gamebird licensing and the government's upcoming review closely and keep our customers updated as more information becomes available.