Background
Lynx UK Trust, a nonprofit promoting the reintroduction of Eurasian lynx to the United Kingdom, submitted a revised proposal in 2022 to release three lynx into Kielder Forest for a monitored three-year trial. The proposal contemplated quarantine and acclimatisation in enclosures, followed by release with tracking, veterinary oversight, and arrangements for recapture. Because lynx are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain in a wild state, their release required a licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Lynx are also scheduled dangerous wild animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Natural England concluded that a Wildlife and Countryside Act licence would not displace the requirements of the 1976 Act and declined in July 2022 to conduct a full assessment because the release had no reasonably foreseeable lawful route. After further correspondence, Lynx UK Trust brought judicial-review proceedings in December 2025, arguing that the 1976 Act did not prohibit a licensed release or, alternatively, that Natural England was required to determine the application despite any separate authorisation problem.
The Court’s Holding
Ms Justice Obi granted permission on the first ground but dismissed it on the merits. Under section 7(1) of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, a person who ceases to possess an animal remains its keeper until another person becomes the keeper. That continuing statutory responsibility is not limited to escape or involuntary loss of possession and therefore does not end when an animal is deliberately released under a Wildlife and Countryside Act licence. The two regimes regulate different matters and operate concurrently; sections 14 and 16 of the 1981 Act neither disapply the 1976 Act nor impliedly repeal it.
The Court refused permission on the second ground because it was brought neither promptly nor within the three-month limit. Time began to run no later than Natural England’s decision of 1 July 2022, and later correspondence merely maintained that position rather than creating a new decision. The Court added that it would have dismissed the ground on the merits: Natural England could rationally consider the release’s legal feasibility and the substantial public resources required for a full assessment, and it was entitled to conclude that further assessment would serve no useful purpose while the statutory obstacle remained. The claim was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A Wildlife and Countryside Act licence authorising release does not remove independent obligations imposed by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act.
- Statutory keepership of a dangerous wild animal continues after possession ends until another person becomes its keeper, including following a deliberate release.
- Later correspondence that merely reaffirms an earlier public-law decision does not restart the judicial-review time limit.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that wildlife-release licensing does not provide a general immunity from other statutory controls. Projects involving species listed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act may therefore require legislative or regulatory change before release can lawfully proceed, even when conservation safeguards are extensive.
It also confirms that a licensing authority may account for a separate legal impediment and the resources needed for assessment when deciding whether to undertake a full substantive review. Applicants must challenge a refusal promptly rather than relying on continuing engagement to preserve judicial-review deadlines.