High Court rejects greyhound racing challenge as Welsh ban moves forward

The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) against the Welsh Government’s plan to ban greyhound racing, clearing the way for landmark animal welfare legislation to proceed.

In R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin), the Divisional Court (Lewis LJ and Chamberlain J) rejected the GBGB’s claim that ministers acted unlawfully by failing to consult before introducing the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill.

The case arose after the Deputy First Minister announced in February 2025 that “now is the right time” to ban greyhound racing in Wales. The GBGB, representing the industry, argued that this decision—and the subsequent introduction of legislation—was unlawful due to the absence of a prior public consultation. 

The claim was later expanded to challenge the formal introduction of the Bill into the Senedd, with the GBGB seeking declarations that the decision-making process was procedurally flawed.

At the heart of the case was a constitutional question: can the courts review a government’s decision to introduce legislation on the basis that consultation was required but not carried out?

The GBGB contended that Welsh Ministers were under a legitimate expectation to consult stakeholders before pursuing such a significant policy change.

The Divisional Court firmly rejected that argument, holding that the introduction of a Bill is part of the legislative process, not an administrative decision subject to ordinary judicial review principles.

The judges emphasised that the Senedd, as a devolved legislature with plenary powers, is responsible for determining its own procedures. Judicial intervention in how legislation is initiated or scrutinised would breach the constitutional principle of separation of powers. 

They further held that:

• There is no legal duty on Welsh Ministers to consult before introducing legislation;

• The legislative process itself provides the forum for debate, evidence-gathering, and scrutiny;

• Allowing judicial review at this stage would improperly interfere with parliamentary proceedings. 

The court also noted that specific statutory mechanisms exist for challenging Bills (including referral to the Supreme Court), and it would be inconsistent with that framework to allow broader challenges via judicial review.

The claim was dismissed in full. The court concluded that the Welsh Ministers acted lawfully in introducing the Bill without prior consultation.

It also declined to rule on the earlier ministerial statement, finding that issue “academic” once the Bill had been validly introduced.