Peta mounts legal action against MoD over replacing King’s Guards’ bearskin caps
Peta has filed for a judicial review against the MoD in a row over replacing the King’s Guards’ bearskin caps with a faux fur alternative.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Animal rights lobby group Peta could take the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to court in a row over replacing the King’s Guards’ bearskin caps with a faux fur alternative.
It claims the MoD has failed to properly consider a synthetic replacement it developed with the faux furrier ECOPEL and has filed for a judicial review.
It alleges the MoD failed to adhere to its own procedures, behaved unfairly, breached procedural expectation, and exhibited flawed decision-making, amounting to unlawful conduct.
Peta claims the MoD’s refusal to trial the faux fur or evaluate the findings of laboratory testing is in breach of a promise it made to replace the bearskin once a suitable alternative is found.
We are seeking the court’s intervention so that the MoD fully evaluates the report and reaches a fresh decision by fair process, with a view to considering the faux fur fabric’s adoption as a replacement for real fur if it is found to be suitable, as the MoD has long committed to doing
However, the MoD previously claimed the ECOPEL product failed to meet four of the five requirements it set for any artificial fur to be considered as a viable alternative.
The tests relate to water absorption, penetration, appearance, drying rate and compression.
Peta argues tests by a fabric technologist show its product meets and, in some cases, exceeds these requirements, but claims the MoD has refused to evaluate the results.
Lorna Hackett, Peta’s legal representative from Hackett & Dabbs LLP, said: “We are seeking the court’s intervention so that the MoD fully evaluates the report and reaches a fresh decision by fair process, with a view to considering the faux fur fabric’s adoption as a replacement for real fur if it is found to be suitable, as the MoD has long committed to doing.”
An MoD spokesperson said: “We have been served with a legal claim in respect of this matter and cannot provide specific comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”
Peta has lobbied for the caps’ fur to be replaced with a synthetic substitute since 2002, accusing the MoD of “support for the slaughter of Canadian black bears”.
The MoD claims the furs are not “hunted for order”, come from legal, licenced hunts and has said that cutting its orders would not reduce the numbers being hunted.
They are worn by foot soldiers in the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, the Irish Guards and the Welsh Guards.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.