Public Consultation Legal Requirements: What the Welsh Greyhound Racing Judicial Review Reveals

The Administrative Court has granted permission for a judicial review of the Welsh Government’s decision to ban greyhound racing, on the ground of unlawful consultation. The case raises a direct question for anyone involved in policy: what does lawful public consultation actually require? tCI examines the process and the lessons it holds for decision-makers.

Why has an Administrative Court granted permission to challenge the ban?

In December 2025, the Administrative Court granted permission for a judicial review of the Welsh Government’s decision to ban greyhound racing. The claimant, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB), argues that the Welsh Government did not follow the correct process. The single permitted ground is unlawful consultation.

The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill, introduced to the Senedd in September 2025, would create two new criminal offences: operating a stadium for greyhound racing and organising a greyhound race anywhere in Wales. Wales now has only one remaining licensed greyhound track, Valley Stadium in Ystrad Mynach, regulated by the GBGB since 2023.

The claim raises a novel constitutional point. As the Bill has now progressed through the Senedd’s legislative process, the court must consider whether it can grant a remedy that would interfere with primary legislation made by the devolved legislature. That question engages the Supreme Court’s reasoning in AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2011]. The full substantive hearing is awaited.

For practitioners working in public consultation, however, the more pressing question is the one that secured permission in the first place: what went wrong with the process?

What does the Welsh Government’s consultation process actually show?

The Welsh Government’s primary reliance on public support for the ban rested on a 2023 consultation on the Licensing of Animal Welfare Establishments, Activities and Exhibits. That exercise included two questions on greyhound racing among a range of questions covering many other animal welfare issues. Of the 1,031 responses to the question about a phased ban, 64.7% expressed support.

The Senedd’s Culture Committee, having scrutinised the Bill, raised serious concerns about this approach. It noted that the consultation was not primarily focused on the proposed ban. It also observed that the methodology was self-selecting, making it vulnerable to coordinated responses by well-organised interest groups on either side. When the Committee carried out its own separate engagement survey, the data showed a much closer division of public opinion.

The picture that emerges is one in which the government drew a firm policy conclusion from a consultation instrument that was not designed, and was not well suited, to answer the question with any precision.

What are the legal requirements for fair public consultation in the UK?

The legal test for fair public consultation in the UK is set out in the Gunning principles, the legal test for fair public consultation, derived from R v London Borough of Brent ex parte Gunning (1985) and later endorsed by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014].

Those four principles require that: consultation must happen at a formative stage, before the decision is made; consultees must receive sufficient information to respond intelligently; there must be adequate time for consideration and response; and the decision-maker must conscientiously take the responses into account.

The more pointed of the Culture Committee’s concerns goes directly to the first of those four requirements. The Welsh Government announced its intention to ban greyhound racing two days after a budget agreement in which the ban appeared as a line item. The Committee’s report concluded that the prioritisation of the Bill was a consequence of the budget deal, which had curtailed the normal process of policy development. Its language was unambiguous: evidence and consultation should precede legislation, yet the Bill was introduced without an agreed evidence base, complete impact assessments, or comprehensive public engagement.

That sequence matters. Where a commitment is made before any targeted consultation on the actual question has taken place, any subsequent consultation carries the risk of predetermination. Consulting after the commitment is made is not genuine consultation. It is, at best, a ratification exercise, and courts have long recognised the difference.

What should decision-makers take from this case?

The Welsh greyhound racing case is instructive for anyone responsible for a contested policy decision, because it combines several failure modes that tCI regularly identifies in consultation practice.

• First, a general survey covering a broad topic was used as the evidential foundation for a specific and contentious proposal. Consultation on a wide-ranging licensing framework is not the same as consultation on whether to ban an activity outright. Conflating the two creates an evidence gap that opponents will exploit.
• Second, the decision sequence was inverted. The announcement preceded the rigorous analysis. Where that happens, even a well-run consultation that follows carries the taint of predetermination.
• Third, the economic and cultural impact analysis was incomplete. The Culture Committee noted this directly and recommended that a comprehensive assessment be carried out before the legislation takes effect. A properly designed consultation would have drawn this evidence out before the policy was settled.

None of this suggests that the Welsh Government’s policy objectives were wrong. The animal welfare concerns raised by the Bill’s supporters are real and, as the Committee acknowledged, contested. But the strength of a policy goal does not substitute for lawful process. Courts, committees, and claimants will examine the process itself, and a flawed process exposes defensible decisions to challenge that could have been prevented.

The Gunning principles are not procedural technicalities. They exist because sound decisions depend on sound information, and sound information depends on genuine engagement before the decision is taken. This case is a pointed reminder of what is at risk when that sequence is reversed.

---

How tCI Can Help

Organisation Wide Learning Hub Access
Equip your entire team with professional consultation skills through one platform. Self paced courses, live virtual classrooms, practical toolkits and expert resources that build a shared baseline of competence across your organisation. Trusted by councils, NHS bodies and regulators nationwide.

Bespoke Training Workshops
Training that works with your real projects, not hypothetical scenarios. Sector tailored sessions help teams apply good practice to live challenges: sharpening consultation documents, building defensible codebooks, strengthening equality analyses. Half day or full day workshops for health, local government, planning and public service teams.

Coaching for Complex or High Risk Consultations
Expert guidance when the stakes are highest. One to one and small group coaching for senior officers navigating legally exposed or politically contentious decisions. Strengthen your judgement on proportionality, evidence standards and challenge management. Essential for organisations that may face judicial review risk or major service changes.

Whether you’re preparing for a high stakes service change, building long term consultation capability, or need confidence that your evidence approach will stand up to scrutiny, we can help.

Contact tCI: hello@consultationinstitute.org