Knocked off its perch: Natural England found to have exceeded powers over gamebird release licensing

The High Court has recently handed down judgment in the case R (British Association for Shooting and Conservation) v Natural England [2026]. BASC brought judicial review proceedings in response to Natural England’s (NE) approach to individual gamebird release licensing on or within Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and within the 500 metre buffer (the ‘controlled zone’).

To provide a brief explanation, NE had been issuing licences under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) to disapply the criminal offence in section 14(1)(b) (releasing, or allowing to escape, certain birds “into the wild”). BASC challenged licence conditions which, in effect, prevented shoots from keeping pheasants and red‑legged partridges in pens within SPAs and the 500m buffer prior to a specified date. It argued that these conditions are not within the legal authority of NE to regulate and that they are therefore ultra vires meaning "beyond the powers".

The court held that the "no keeping" conditions were unlawful because NE had exceeded its legal powers. The judge provided clarity that there was a clear difference between keeping birds in pens and releasing birds into the wild. The WCA 1981 creates offences and licensing powers only in relation to releasing birds. It does not regulate the keeping of gamebirds in pens prior to release. While NE can license and regulate releasing, the court found that it cannot use those licensing powers to control wider husbandry activities before release. Because the conditions were based on a misunderstanding of what the legislation allows NE to do, the court also described the approach as "irrational" in public law terms.

For CLA members, the wider point may not just be confined to shooting. Where NE regulates land management through licences and conditions, this judgment is a reminder that conditions must stay tethered to the activity Parliament has actually made licensable. If NE’s appeal is not successful, it will need to revisit its controlled‑zone licensing approach and wording.

That said, members should be clear about the immediate compliance position, nothing has yet changed about the requirement for a licence for release on an SPA or within the 500m buffer, and existing licences (and their conditions) must still be complied with. Those without licences still cannot release pheasants or red‑legged partridges on an SPA or within the 500m buffer.

Attention will now inevitably turn to the next stage of the litigation, given NE has stated that it intends to seek permission to appeal. The eventual outcome of any appeal proceedings will be important not only for gamebird licensing, but more broadly for understanding the limits of the conditions that regulators can attach to statutory licences.

We will continue to monitor developments closely and keep members updated on any further developments, including the outcome of any application for permission to appeal and any subsequent appeal proceedings.