Legal bill for cull challenge farmer

2 April 2001

Legal bill for cull challenge farmer

by FWi staff

AN ORGANIC farmer faces a hefty legal bill after abandoning a High Court challenge against the governments handling of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

Peter Kindersley withdrew from the case hours before hearings were due to begin at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Monday (April 2).

The Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF) said that the Berkshire farmer now faced a considerable bill to pay the ministrys costs of preparing for the case.

Mr Kindersley and two Cumbrian farmers had claimed it was immoral for the government to slaughtering healthy animals to control foot-and-mouth.

But the former publisher, who had been granted permission last week to launch the judicial review, said in a statement he realised he would be defeated.

The Government has to decide how to proceed and we recognise that no Court will ever interfere with Government policy in these circumstances.

Accordingly we have withdrawn our court action today.

Nevertheless, Mr Kindersley vowed to continue his battle against what he described as MAFFs medieval and immoral slaughter of healthy animals.

Farmers who have healthy animals should continue to resist MAFF officials who want to slaughter them. They need permission before they can slaughter.

Mr Kindersley has called for livestock to be vaccinated against foot-and-mouth rather than slaughtered in an attempt to stop the disease spreading.

He said that he was finally persuaded to drop his legal challenge after the government finally showed signs that it might start vaccinating livestock.

The Prime Minister is taking a close personal involvement along with other cabinet ministers and they are now hearing all sides of the argument, he said.

Foot-and-mouth – confirmed outbreaks

Foot-and-mouth – FWi coverage

See more