Magistrates decided not to accept a farmer's guilty plea today when he appeared in court to answer two charges of interfering with a badger sett on his land.
Mark Simpson of Hunter Hill, Seamer, near Middlesbrough, admitted blocking holes leading underground during construction work on a new chicken shed in March.
However, the Bench sitting at Richmond in North Yorkshire were not convinced the prosecution had done enough to prove the tunnels led to an occupied badger sett.
As a result, the magistrates took the unusual step of ordering Mr Simpson to plead not guilty at a new hearing, which will be held at a later date.
Mitigating on Mr Simpson's behalf yesterday, solicitor Craig Beer said representatives from the local Badger Watch group had been regular visitors at Hunters Hill.
Aware the animals are protected by law, Mr Simpson had co-operated with the organisation in the past.
However, he accepted, when the new chicken shed was constructed, oval-shaped holes in an earth bank had been blocked off.
Mr Beer said Mr Simpson had not realised they were entrances to a badger sett; he thought they had been made by rabbits or foxes and were now unoccupied.
Nevertheless, charges were brought against him after inspections by the RSPCA and the local Badger Watch team suggested otherwise.
However, magistrates ordered an new hearing when it emerged RSPCA inspectors had admitted animal tracks found around the holes may not have been made by badgers.
The court was also told the Badger Watch examination of the site had been made from a distance with binoculars due to restrictions imposed as a result of the foot-and-mouth crisis.
The prosecution has now been requested to provide further evidence to prove there was activity around the badger sett when the holes were blocked during construction of the chicken shed.
A pre-trial review, which will decide if the case will proceed, has been set for Wednesday, November 28.
"Mr Simpson is an honest man who was doing normal construction work," said Mr Beer. "Perhaps he was wreckless in that he could have sought more advice before going ahead but he did not set out with the intention of doing any harm."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article