The bill makes it a criminal offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure, or take a hare or leveret during an identified “close season.” Conviction is summary-only, with the option of imprisonment, a fine, or both. The measure replaces the century-old framework that governed hare protection.
The statute builds in two narrow escape routes from criminal liability: (1) an authorised landowner or occupier may act to prevent serious crop damage but must meet specific evidential and procedural tests including obtaining a licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 before taking lethal action; and (2) persons may lawfully take animals that are incapacitated where there is no reasonable hope of recovery or take them temporarily for tending and later release. The Act applies to England and Wales and comes into force one month after enactment.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new, seasonal criminal offence protecting hares and leverets and sets statutory defences limited to (a) preventing serious crop damage by authorised persons and (b) dealing with seriously disabled animals. The offence targets intentional and reckless conduct and is enforced by summary prosecution.
Who It Affects
Farmers, landowners and lawful occupiers who manage crops or game; gamekeepers and pest‑control contractors; wildlife and animal‑welfare organisations; and local policing and magistrates’ courts responsible for enforcement and prosecutions.
Why It Matters
It modernises and consolidates hare protection into a single statute, shifts responsibility onto land managers to secure licences and evidence before using lethal means, and creates new criminal exposure for activities that previously operated in a patchwork of older law and customary practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets legally enforceable seasonal protection for hares by making it an offence to kill, injure, or take a hare or leveret during a designated close season. That protection is not absolute: the text carves out a narrow supplier of defences aimed at balancing animal protection with the practical needs of land management.
The criminal offence requires proof of an intentional or reckless state of mind for the actor and is designed to be prosecuted summarily in magistrates’ courts.
One statutory defence is available to an authorised person (the landowner, lawful occupier, or someone authorised by them) who can show their lethal action was necessary to prevent serious crop damage. The defence imposes layered evidential tests: the actor must show reasonable grounds to believe hares of the same species caused serious damage, that further serious damage was likely, that non‑lethal measures had been tried and failed, and that any lethal step taken was necessary and proportionate.
Importantly, the defence is contingent on obtaining a licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 prior to taking lethal action.Separately, the bill allows action when an animal has been so seriously disabled — not by the actor’s unlawful conduct — that recovery is not reasonably possible, and it permits taking a disabled animal solely to tend it and release it once recovered. Those provisions cover both immediate humane responses to injured animals and short‑term rescue and rehabilitation activities.Procedurally, breach of the prohibition is a summary offence, with sentencing options including imprisonment and fines; the Act replaces the older statutory regime and extends only to England and Wales, coming into force one month after it receives Royal Assent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a hare close season that protects hares and leverets for a set part of the year (the bill text specifies the close season as 1 February to 30 September).
The offence covers intentional or reckless killing, injuring, or taking of hares and leverets during the close season and is punishable on summary conviction.
An authorised person can rely on a crop‑damage defence only if they obtained a licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 before acting and can satisfy four evidential tests (reasonable grounds, likelihood of further serious damage, failure of non‑lethal methods, and necessity/proportionality).
There are two humane‑care exceptions: (a) where an animal is so badly disabled (by something other than the actor’s unlawful act) that recovery is not reasonably possible, and (b) where an animal has been disabled but was taken only to be tended and released when recovered.
The bill repeals the Hares Preservation Act 1892, applies only to England and Wales, and comes into force one month after passage.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Offence: prohibiting harm to hares in the close season
Section 1 creates the core criminal prohibition: intentionally or recklessly killing, injuring or taking any hare or leveret during the statutory close season. Practically, this sets a clear mens rea requirement (intent or recklessness) rather than strict liability, which matters for prosecutions: prosecutors must prove the defendant’s state of mind. The summary‑only offence steers cases into magistrates’ courts; sentencing is limited to statutory maximums for summary proceedings.
Defences for crop protection and disabled animals
Section 2 contains two distinct defences. The crop‑damage route is tightly constrained: an authorised person must show reasonable grounds that hares of the same species caused serious damage, that serious further damage was likely, that non‑lethal options had failed, and that the lethal action taken was necessary and proportionate — plus they must have secured a section 16 WCA 1981 licence before acting. The disabled‑animal route has two strands: an immediate humane exception where recovery is impossible, and a permissive route for temporarily taking an injured hare solely to tend it and later release it. Both defences shift evidential burdens onto the actor in any prosecution.
Repeal of the Hares Preservation Act 1892
Section 3 repeals the 1892 Act, removing the older statutory overlay for hare protection. Repeal streamlines the legal framework but also extinguishes any quirks or localised provisions preserved in the older statute, concentrating regulation and enforcement under the new Act and existing licensing mechanisms in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Extent, commencement and short title
Section 4 limits the Act geographically to England and Wales, provides that it comes into force one month after passing, and sets the short title. The modest commencement delay gives administrators and prospective licence applicants a brief window to prepare, but it also means land managers must be ready to operate under the new licence‑first rules almost immediately.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Wildlife and animal‑welfare organisations — gain a clear, modern legal protection for hares during a defined period and a statutory basis to challenge unlawful lethal control.
- Hares and leverets themselves — receive a statutory close season that reduces lawful lethal disturbance and provides explicit humane exceptions for injured animals.
- Members of the public opposed to unregulated seasonal killing — benefit from clearer law and an enforceable offence that can be prosecuted by police or private parties acting on behalf of public interest groups.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landowners and farmers — bear new administrative and evidential burdens: they must obtain pre‑action licences and document attempts at non‑lethal control before resorting to lethal methods, or face criminal exposure.
- Gamekeepers and shooting estates — will face tighter constraints on when they may lawfully take hares and must adapt operations and record‑keeping to avoid prosecutions.
- Pest‑control contractors — where lethal intervention is sought, contractors must ensure clients hold correct licences and could be exposed to prosecution if they act without verifying licence status.
- Local policing and magistrates’ courts — will absorb additional enforcement and casework, including factual disputes about whether non‑lethal measures were tried and whether damage was ‘serious’.
- Government licensing bodies (DEFRA/AGRICULTURAL AGENCIES) — may need to handle increased demand for section 16 licences and set practical guidance, which is an administrative and budgetary cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing animal protection against practical farm interests: it hardens legal protection for hares to address welfare and conservation concerns but relies on pre‑emptive licensing and discretionary, evidence‑heavy defences to protect crops. That trade‑off forces a choice between clear, enforceable animal‑welfare rules and flexible, rapid responses to agricultural damage — the statute leans toward the former at the cost of imposing administrative and evidential burdens on land managers.
The bill attempts a calibrated compromise but leaves several operational pinch points. First, the statutory defences require fact‑intensive showings — “reasonable grounds,” “serious damage,” “likely further damage,” “failure of non‑lethal methods,” and “proportionate necessity” — all inherently discretionary concepts.
That creates grey areas in everyday farming: routine, opportunistic lethal control could newly attract criminal charges if paperwork or contemporaneous evidence is weak.
Second, the licence‑before‑action requirement imports dependency on the administrative capacity and timeliness of the section 16 licensing system under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If licences are slow, costly, or inconsistently issued, land managers may either act unlawfully in urgent situations or face crop losses while awaiting permissions.
Enforcement will require courts to assess prior attempts at non‑lethal control, which could turn prosecutions into complex evidentiary battles.
Finally, repealing the 1892 Act simplifies statute book navigation but may remove specific local practices or exemptions that communities relied upon. The bill also leaves open how it will interact with other regulatory regimes (for example, disease control zones or emergency pest‑control powers), and it does not set out guidance on record‑keeping or the standard of proof expected for “serious damage,” which could produce uneven enforcement across regions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.