The Scottish Raptor Study Group (SRSG) has this morning withdrawn its application for judicial review of the Strathbraan raven cull licence, but only on a temporary basis.
In an email to its crowdfunder supporters, the SRSG has stated the following:
Dear supporter,
This morning we have instructed our legal team to withdraw our application for judicial review of the Strathbraan raven cull licence.
The reasons for this are as follows:
Our initial objectives for applying for judicial review were to (a) establish that the process and scientific justification for the SNH raven cull licence (i.e. ‘just to see what happens’) was flawed and should not be permitted to be used as the basis for this or for any future cull licences for ravens or other protected species; and (b) to have the 2018 raven cull licence stopped.
We have succeeded in achieving both objectives.
At the end of July, SNH published a review conducted by its own Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) which utterly condemned the scientific justificiation and design of the ‘study’, calling it “completely inadequate”, “seriously flawed” and “will fail to provide any meaningful scientific evidence”.
As a result of this damning review, SNH also announced that the licence holder (Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders, SCCW) had agreed to ‘voluntarily suspend’ the raven cull from the end of July until the licence expires on 31 December 2018, having killed 39 of its licensed quota of 69 ravens. On a superficial level this appeared, initially, to be a satisfactory response, but we had concerns that the ‘voluntary suspension’ was not legally binding and so the SCCW could continue to kill ravens at any time for the remaining duration of the licence.
However, we are now satisfied that the SCCW has made an undertaking to voluntarily suspend the cull, which in effect means the licence will not be used again before it expires on 31 Dec 2018. According to our lawyers, the use of the word ‘undertaking’ has more legal significance than the word ‘agreed’, so if the SCCW does decide to continue killing ravens under the terms of the current (flawed) licence, even though it has undertaken not to, this would open an opportunity for us to launch a further legal challenge. It is important to note that it is the SCCW that has made this undertaking to voluntarily suspend the cull, and not SNH. Therefore any potential legal action on this point would be taken against the licence holder, not SNH.
[NB: On legal advice, the above paragraph has been edited at 14.13hrs to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, the respective positions, as we understand, of SNH and SCCW]
As we have successfully achieved both our objectives, our application for judicial review becomes just an academic exercise with no tangible benefits, as the SAC has already declared the scientific justification as being “completely inadequate” and SNH will not be issuing any further licences without substantial review, and an undertaking has been made by SCCW not to kill any more ravens for the duration of the licence. If we were to proceed with our application for judicial review on this academic basis alone, there is a risk the judge would consider our case unfavourably and dismiss it, leaving us exposed to a demand for legal costs from SNH.
We feel we have a responsibility to use our crowdfunded donations wisely and pursuing an academic exercise just to prove a point would not be a prudent use of these funds, nor a good use of court time. On balance, we would have more to lose than gain. Instead, we intend to hold the remaining funds as a war chest so that if/when SNH decides to issue a further licence permitting the killing of ravens in Strathbraan, we will be in a strong position to react quickly and launch another legal challenge if it is deemed necessary. Our funds are currently being professionally audited and we have a significant amount remaining, which will be held by our lawyers in a ring-fenced account.
Our fight to get #Justice4Ravens is not over. SNH indicated that the 2018 raven cull licence was part of a proposed five-year ‘study’ at Strathbraan and although SNH has admitted it has to review and amend its “seriously flawed” study design, we are well aware that future licences are quite likely, if not in time for 2019 then probably for 2020. We consider the withdrawal of our application for judicial review as a temporary measure and will not hesitate to apply for a further judicial review if SNH’s incompetence continues.
We’d like to record our sincere thanks to our legal team, Sindi Mules (Balfour & Manson) and Aidan O’Neill QC (Matrix Chambers) for their hard work and commitment to our case. They have been fantastic to work with and we look forward to seeking their advice again as SNH’s future raven cull plans become clearer.
We’d also like to thank you, our donors, whose generous support allowed us to launch this legal challenge. It’s a cliche but our success in this case would not have been possible without your trust and support (and of course, your donations!). Thank you all.
We will continue to keep you informed of any new developments.
Ruth Tingay & Logan Steele, on behalf of Scottish Raptor Study Group
ENDS
To read all previous blogs on the raven cull licence, please see HERE (and scroll to foot of page)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Excellent news. I’ll hang on to the T shirt and still wear the bunnet.
Happy for you to keep the money in your chest. Should the day come when we no longer need to fight these battles, I would also be happy for you to use for a party!
Disappointing but ultimately sensible. Please be aware that I am willing to put my hand in my pocket the minute that further funds are required….and they will be required!
SNH, in stating that they intend to push on with this farce are continuing to shuffle towards the end of the gang plank. Sooner and later they will get to the end, if they fall off, who would miss them?
Their scientific committee could not have been clearer. Every facet of this sordid politically driven sop was wrong. Including the undeniable fact that there was no justification behind it at all. The SNH position statement ignores this completely.
There is no baseline for the study …last year’s data was useless, this year’s data was useless and there is of course no data for the unspecified control area. They would have to start again….but the raven population has now been depressed and that might impact on their new baseline…. What is certain is that SNH will not have a valid research project before them in 2019, so there is no way they can consider a licence for 2019.
Well done Ruth and Logan!
Mixed feelings about this. Obviously it is the correct decision from point of prudence and using the donations wisely, but it denies us the chance to force the whole issue into the public domain which the court case would have done. It also saves the skin of the senior decision makers at SNH who presided over this fiasco.
I think SNH’s own scientific committee, including 2 directors, have made made such a strong statement that the skin of the senior decision makers cannot be said to have been saved.The judicial review application (thanks again) has played it’s part, and as SNH still show no sign of being under any sort of control, I believe the remainder of the funds will be needed again. We can only hope that they start to follow their mandate, but I’m not optimistic.
Hi Phil,
We’d have to disagree. The whole raven cull fiasco has received considerable media coverage and has attracted significant public interest (over 165,000 signatures on a petition against it and over £26,000 raised to support the legal challenge).
Continuing with the application for judicial review as a purely academic exercise, although sorely tempting, would put at risk the SRSG’s moral victory in this case and could jeopardise any future legal challenge.
As for “saving the skin of the senior decision makers at SNH who presided over this fiasco”, those officials have already been exposed for accepting the GWCT’s “completely inadequate” and “seriously flawed” study design. SNH’s chronic mishandling of this licence has meant its credibility has sunk as low as it can go in the eyes of many conservationists and a court hearing, whatever the result, wouldn’t change that.
Better an actual victory than a moral one. There is a Trope for this:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoomedMoralVictor
Yeah, it would have been better to force the issue and give the shooters a proper [metaphorical] bloody nose. It feels very much like they’ve scored another victory against us with this, not the other way around.
A wise decision – the money will be needed to oppose these politically motivated culls.
In the mean time the persecution will continue anyway, just without a licence.
Opposition is however the only way to show the bias towards intensive grouse shooting in SNH and in the rest of the UK licencing system.
Keep up the pressure !
THIS is how the fight against raptor persecution and other wildlife crime should be conducted. NOT using mob rule tactics of sabbing any shooting party you manage to find meeting locations for.
Well done, and full credit to the SRSG team.
“Mob rule”? Surely more a group of law abiding individuals exercising their legal rights to demonstrate their repugnance, in a proactive manner, of the causes of wildlife crime as exemplified by driven grouse shooting. Lobbying, petitions, legal challenges, trials of “alleged” perpetrators all seem to have come to naught and if there were 10,000 “sabs” out and about on our hills that would be an end of it as, generally speaking, there has been with fox hunting.
“withdrawn its application for judicial review of the Strathbraan raven cull licence, but only on a temporary basis” – this was not a victory. Pip.
Yes, how dare people be uncivil. Just because that gets results, and this has demotivated a huge chunk of people for no real gain and handed the pro-shooters an undeniable PR victory. Nah, mate. Direct action is far more effective. I’d be more likely to donate to the sabs in future.
Excellent result and not a moment too soon, many congrats to all at Raptor Persecution Scotland, Ruth Tingay and all the legal team, and all the donors. Let’s hope this sets a precedent for further mad ‘ecosystem engineering’ by SNH or NE, or anyone else, e.g. the grouse moor owners!
Jonathan.
Agree with RSG’s decision not to proceed further at this stage. Good to keep the remaining war chest, as not unlikely that license application rears its ugly head again, so happy my donation is part of that. These incompetent SNH senior staff are not going away!
At the very least, you have saved 30 beautiful, intelligent ravens from a senseless death, and I thank you for that.