Tim Bonner: How to deal with a problem like Chris Packham

It is increasingly the case that there is not necessarily much correlation between media coverage and actual achievement in public and political campaigning. A case in point is that of Chris Packham and his legal vehicle Wild Justice. Mr Packham uses his fawning social media following, and acquiescent BBC colleagues, to promote Wild Justice's legal challenges across the press and airwaves. When Wild Justice gets to court, however, and the facts of whatever issues it is raising are properly considered, it has a record of almost complete failure yet Wild Justice does not seem to mind its regular trouncing in court on the basis, presumably, that all publicity is good publicity, which also fits perfectly with its creators' ego-driven agendas.

However, this publicity driven campaigning might not all be as 'good' for Wild Justice as it thinks. Indeed, there are a number of negative developments for Mr Packham and his friends. The first is the increasing cohesion of the shooting sector, which has led to the creation of a formal partnership, Aim to Sustain, through which we address the major strategic issues facing game shooting with our colleagues in eight/* other rural organisations. Aim to Sustain partners have consistently intervened in Wild Justice's attempts to Judicially Review Defra, Natural England and other statutory bodies. For instance, BASC, the Countryside Alliance, the National Gamekeepers Organisation and the Moorland Association are all 'interested parties' in Wild Justice's current attempt to Judicially Review Defra's Heather Burning Regulations.

The background to this challenge is that anti-shooting campaigners have failed to persuade the Government of the case for banning heather burning so Wild Justice is trying to get the courts to do it instead. The High Court has twice ruled that there are no grounds for the Judicial Review to go ahead, but Wild Justice is appealing this decision again because, in its own words, "it's cheap to take the next step". This sort of abuse of the legal system is creating Wild Justice's next problem, which is that the Government is becoming increasingly frustrated by the use of the courts, and Judicial Review in particular, to attack and delay government policy. Of course, there needs to be the potential for recourse when governments are not operating lawfully, but there is a perception that the crucial rights of the individual to hold the government to account are being abused. That in turn has led to a consultation on amendments to the Human Rights Act which, in the words of Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, would "prevent misuse and distortion".

Wild Justice's third problem is that in the specific areas of wildlife and environmental law, the Government has also launched a consultation into the Habitats Regulations which underpin all relevant legislation. Again, there are concerns that judicial activism, aided by shifting interpretations of the regulations in the EU court, has led to a situation where the legal process can be abused. In particular, the interpretation of the 'precautionary principle', which Wild Justice relies heavily on in its Judicial Reviews, is providing a vehicle for campaigners to challenge a whole range of activities and developments from building railway lines to issuing licences to control pest species. The fact that Defra Minister Lord Benyon has been tasked with carrying out this review is a significant step forward and the Aim to Sustain partnership is fully engaged in supplying the evidence and arguments for change to the Habitats Regulations. In contrast to Wild Justice, the crucial work being carried out by Aim to Sustain might not always excite the media, but it is having the direct effect of protecting and preserving game shooting which it was set up to deliver.

Meanwhile, on a less positive note, the Government is pressing on with its Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill which perversely would increase many of the problems it is seeking to address in its consultation on Judicial Review. Our Chairman, Lord Herbert, moved an amendment to the Bill at Third Reading in the House of Lords which expressed "regret at the way in which the proposed Animal Sentience Committee is to be established". One notable intervention came from the crossbench peer Lord Etherton, who as Master of the Rolls was the second most senior judge in England and Wales. He said: "If the Government decided not to follow a recommendation from the sentience committee on contentious issues relating to animal welfare, it would inevitably give rise to the potential for judicial review and challenge". The Government has, as yet, refused to accept any amendments to the Bill despite such criticism being widespread. The Bill now moves to the House of Commons.