Lawbite: Camping on the wild side on Dartmoor Commons

Summary

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has upheld a decision by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and confirmed that members of the public have a right to wild camp on privately owned land on the Dartmoor Commons under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”).

The case was followed by a number of interested parties, including wild camping campaign groups, such as Right to Roam and the Open Spaces Society, who are now pushing for a new law extending the right to wild camp on all open country in England and Wales.

This decision will have an immediate impact on owners of private land in Dartmoor Commons, but will also be of significant interest to owners of private land in other National Parks given that the Supreme Court’s interpretation could open the door to further claims for the right to wild camp on other National Parks in England and Wales.

What is wild camping?

‘Wild camping’ means camping on private land other than at a formal designated campsite. Until this case came to court, it was understood by many that the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (the 1985 Act) gave the public a right to wild camp on Dartmoor Commons, without needing any permission from a landowner. 

The right to access

The relevant part of section 10(1) provides that ‘Subject to all provisions of this Act and compliance will all rules, regulations or byelaws relating to the commons…the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation’.

Mr and Mrs Darwall owned and farmed land on Dartmoor and opposed wild camping on the grounds of potential harm caused to their livestock. According to them, the words “open-air recreation” in the 1985 Act did not include wild camping.

In 2023, the Darwalls went to the High Court to prove the point and won. However, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal later in 2023. Now the Supreme Court has sided with the Court of Appeal and has confirmed that section 10(1) of the 1985 Act does indeed permit wild camping as a form of “open air recreation”.

The Supreme Court's reasoning

The starting point for the Supreme Court was to apply the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. This means and seeking “to ascertain the meaning of the words used in a statute in the light of their context and the purpose of the statutory provision”. The Court decided:

• ‘on foot or on horseback’ - refers to the means by which members of the public can access Dartmoor to engage in open-air recreation. It doesn’t limit ‘open-air recreation’ to activities which can only be performed ‘on foot or on horseback’. Adopting the latter interpretation would in the words of Lords Sales and Stephens be ‘absurd’ as this would mean, for example, ‘one would have no right to stop to have a picnic’. But it does mean that you can’t drive your campervan or caravan onto Dartmoor. That obviously isn’t on foot or on horseback
• ‘open-air recreation’ - is to be read widely to include wild camping. The Court was referred to sections 59 and 60 of the Countryside 1949 Act (“the 1949 Act”) (from which the 1985 Act is derived) as providing relevant context for the interpretation of section 10(1). Those sections prevent a person from any claim for trespass for having access to open land for ‘open-air recreation’. The Court found that wild camping is not specifically excluded from the definition of open-air recreation in 1949 Act nor included in the schedule of restricted behaviour in the 1949 Act

Where are we now?

• Dartmoor Commons is currently the only place in England and Wales where the right to wild camp exists. The public derives its rights to access most other open areas by virtue of it being designated as open access land by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW). That Act makes it clear that the public does not have a right to camp
• nature minister Mary Creagh welcomed the decision and described wild camping as “one of life’s great pleasures”. The minster went on to highlight the government’s commitment to bringing people closer to nature. The government may therefore be receptive to calls by campaign groups for a new law extending the right to wild camp to all open country in England and Wales. The most obvious legal mechanism to do so would be by an amendment to CROW. No doubt any such moves would meet with a counter-lobby from those opposed to the right to wild camp