Court to decide on turtle dove spring hunting season next Monday

A judge will hand down his ruling on BirdLife Malta’s application for an injunction that would prevent the opening of the spring hunting season for turtle dove this year on Monday.

Mr. Justice Giovanni Grixti, presiding the First Hall of the Civil Court, heard the arguments being made by both sides of the debate during Friday’s 90-minute sitting, in a courtroom packed with activists from both camps.

Richard Lia, Head of the Wild Birds Regulation Unit, which falls within the remit of the Ministry for Gozo, took the witness stand as the sitting began, to confirm that the government intended to open the spring hunting season this year.

Lawyer Martin Farrugia, representing BirdLife together with lawyer Claire Bonello, accused the other parties of trivialising the ongoing extinction of turtle doves with their plea that the organisation lacked juridical interest.

“When you look at the traditional elements of juridical interest, it is clear that even these requisites are all satisfied,” he said. “BirdLife Malta’s interest is to stop hunting. This is an environmentalist organisation and no perversion of language can detract from this. Its interest is also legitimate, as the environment is protected at law.

It is also real, because the hunting season is about to open, he said.

 “It is the most obscene practice, hunting birds in spring as they migrate to breed,” said the lawyer, slamming the State’s efforts to keep the season open.

Farrugia cited a number of judgments, all of which confirmed that environmental organisations possessed the required juridical interest to participate in such cases.

“I feel slightly ridiculous having to make these arguments, because it is axiomatic that an organisation named Birdlife, that works in the conservation sphere, has a juridical interest in these proceedings..”

“On the other hand we have the State attempting to deprive people of their right to enjoy nature.”

On the argument about the proportionality of requesting an injunction, the lawyer said it was “crystal clear that there is scientific consensus that this particular species is vulnerable. The principal threats are hunting and habitat loss.”  Data from the Pan-European common bird monitoring system also confirmed the vulnerability of this species, he added.

“It is in constant decline, losing 80% in the past 30 years”

The impact of hunting a reduced population will encourage more hunting as it becomes more rare and valuable, he said, pointing to the extinction of other species, such as the American bison. “We are creating this perverse incentive to poaching.”

The pro-hunting arguments are contradicted by science and contradicted by data, he said, explaining that the motivation behind the injunction application is to stop the downward trend in the species' numbers.

“This is also the intention of the legislator, both local and European,” he said. “The Birds Directive distinguishes between species. When you have a vulnerable species, a different paradigm applies and the State cannot simply do what it wants. One of the things it cannot do is open the hunting season in spring for a species which migrates to reproduce.”

BirdLife Malta’s lawyers rejected the accusation that they were “recycling” the same arguments they put forward last year. “The State, despite having a plan…took no positive action to preserve this species, as they are bound to do at law.”

“Things are different since the last time this issue came to court, most prominent is the fact that the numbers have continued to decline.”

Pointing out that everyone had the right to enjoy the environment, which would benefit if the injunction is upheld, Farrugia went further. “BirdLife Malta has the obligation, not just the right, to fight against the disfigurement of the environment every day. If it needs to file an injunction every year, it will do so.”

Opposing counsel, lawyer Charlene Muscat, argued that the State Advocate and Minister for Gozo and the Environment were not the correct defendants.

The court had already passed judgement on this issue last year, she said. The lawyer emphasised that this was not the first request to close the hunting season made by Birdlife Malta. “It is identical. The only difference is that this time it was filed before the legal notice opening the season was issued.”

The ORNIS committee had already come up with a scientific position, contrary to that of the plaintiff, said the lawyer. “This is why they decided to chance their arm again and apply for an identical injunction as last year”

Muscat accused the organisation of “trying their luck again in the hope that the court would arrive at a different conclusion on the same issue. We feel that the court will send a clear message that this behaviour is not acceptable,” submitted the government lawyer.

Taking over from his colleague, lawyer Anthony Borg argued that no evidence had been exhibited to support the plaintiff’s claims about illness and population decline and therefore these arguments should be disregarded by the court. Borg insisted that migrating population was stable.

“At no point did we argue that BLM did not have juridical interest,” he said. “The pertinent issue is the organisation’s right to challenge a Maltese law on the grounds of incompatibility with European law, which does not require an injunction.”

On the infringement proceedings against Malta, the lawyer said that only a “fact finding letter” had been received. “Not a motivated opinion or a threat to bring Malta before the European Court.”

Borg accused the NGO of trying to stop the government from exercising its authority by substituting the authority of the government with that of the court.

This was causing “the disproportionate effect of paralysing the State apparatus and public authorities,” said the lawyer.

“A prohibitory injunction is not a weapon to be used for arm-twisting,” he said.

The court, having hearing the submissions by the parties, announced that it would be handing down a decree on Monday at 9am.