Chris Packham wins libel claim in respect of articles published on Country Squire website accusing him of dishonesty.

One of the allegations made against Mr Packham concerned his fundraising for tigers that had been rescued from a circus where he believed they had been kept in conditions not conducive to good animal welfare. It was alleged that ‘in fact (as Mr Packham knew) the Tigers had been well-treated and had been donated by the circus.’ [Packham v Wightman and others [2023] EWHC 1256 (KB) , para. 10].

The court heard expert evidence addressing the welfare of travelling circus tigers and ‘whether it is inherently harmful to them to keep these animals in such environments ‘ [Packham v Wightman, para. 43].

In assess this, Saini J States:

‘The expert evidence left me with the firm overall impression that the modern peer-reviewed literature supports the proposition that it is indeed inherently harmful to tigers for them to be kept in travelling circuses. That conclusion is based on applying what the literature calls the “domains” model for assessing animal welfare which considers nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioural interactions and mental state…’ [para. 48].

‘I conclude on this point by noting that it is perhaps more helpful to record that the literature reflects what is an emerging international legal consensus which prohibits the use of wild animals in circuses. That is supportive of the position of Mr Packham and his expert, Professor Knight. I note the following in this regard, 48 countries have imposed bans on the use or import/export of one or all wild animals in association with circuses. This include a substantial number of EU states (now including Spain) and the UK. The Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 prohibits the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England. That measure and many of the others are motivated by animal protection and animal welfare concerns’ [para. 49].

Rob Espin, co-chair of the wildlife working group at the UK Centre for Animal Law, said the decision “offered protection for wildlife and welfare activists who are reporting on wildlife protection issues to raise public protection from smear campaigns. The judgement will hopefully reinforce the precendent that those who seek to wrongfully dispute or deny the abuse of animals in public forum cannot do so through the malicious spreading of misinformation.’

Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/chris-packham-wins-libel-claim-against-website-that-accused-him-of-lying#:~:text=Chris%20Packham%20has%20won%20his,money%20to%20a%20wildlife%20sanctuary