Supreme Court to consider Dartmoor wild camping case
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in the high-profile case between Dartmoor landowners and the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) over the lawfulness of wild camping.
Landowners Alexander and Diana Darwall brought a legal challenge against the DNPA in 2021, arguing that the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which established the national park authority, did not give visitors the right to wild camp.
The discussion at the High Court in 2021 centred around section 10(1) of the 1985 act, which provides that "the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation".
Sir Julian Flaux, High Court judge, ultimately ruled that: "The meaning of section 10(1) is clear and unambiguous: it confers the right to roam on the Commons, which does not include, whether as a matter of construction or of necessary implication, a right to wild camp without permission.
"It was never the purpose of the statutory provision to give more than that right to roam."
But at the Court of Appeal in July 2023, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, found section 10(1) of the 1985 Act confers on members of the public the "right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor Commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise, provided that the other provisions of the 1985 Act and schedule 2 to the [National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949] and the Byelaws are adhered to".
The Darwalls applied to the Supreme Court for an appeal of the Court of Appeal's ruling in the Summer of last year. Landmark Chambers said the appellants' challenge asks the court to consider whether the Court of Appeal took sufficient account of admissible 'background' materials in identifying the 'mischief' at which the legislation was aimed and in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.
The Supreme Court will also be asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal properly applied the principles applicable to the interpretation of statutes which abridge property rights, such as the so-called principle of legality and the presumption against expropriation.
In addition, the appeal will involve a consideration of the principle that a 'private' Act is to be construed strictly against its promotor, Landmark said.
Commenting on the plans to appeal the Court of Appeal's judgment in August 2023, DNPA's Chief Executive and National Park Officer, Dr Kevin Bishop, said: "We respect the right of Mr and Mrs Darwall to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court but are disappointed that the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal might not be the end of the legal process."
Timothy Morshead KC and Tom Morris of Landmark Chambers are acting for the appellant landowners, instructed by James Pavey and Natalie Hayes-Green of Irwin Mitchell.
Morshead also previously acted for the landowners in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.
Adam Carey
