Supreme Court rejects appeal over right of public to camp on Dartmoor

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by landowners against the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) over whether the public has a right to camp on the Dartmoor Commons.

In Darwall and another (Appellants) v Dartmoor National Park Authority (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 20, Lord Reed (President), Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agreed that wording within the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 confers a right of public access which includes wild camping.

The Supreme Court's summary of the judgment said the finding was supported "by a wide range of interpretive aids, including other provisions in the 1985 Act and the legislative background".

The appeal centred on the interpretation of section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which provides: "Subject to the provisions of this Act and compliance with all rules, regulations or byelaws relating to the commons and for the time being in force, the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation…".

The appeal was launched by the Darwall family, who own an estate in the national park and have been pursuing litigation against wild camping on the commons for four years.

The family, who have cattle that graze on Dartmoor, initially brought a claim in the High Court in 2021 seeking a declaration that section 10(1) does not grant the public a right to camp on the commons. The High Court held that section 10(1) did not grant such a right.

The Court of Appeal later disagreed in August 2023, holding that section 10(1) confers a right to engage in camping on the Commons.

Handing down his decision in the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, said that 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 then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal in January 2024. 

The appellants submitted that the right of access to the commons for the purpose of open-air recreation under section 10(1) was qualified, in that the open-air recreation in question has to be of a kind which is carried out "on foot or on horseback" and therefore does not include camping.

DNPA and the Open Spaces Society, which was an intervener in the case, meanwhile argued that the words "on foot and on horseback" in section 10(1) state the means by which a person has to gain access to the commons in order to enjoy the right created by that provision.

They do not qualify the forms of open-air recreation which may be enjoyed having done so, the respondents contended.

The Supreme Court said there are "several indications" that wild camping by individuals who have entered the commons on foot or on horseback is made a matter of entitlement by section 10(1).

Among the indications highlighted by the court was the following line in the provision: "The public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation."

"In our view, as a matter of ordinary language, camping is a form of 'open-air recreation'," the judgment said.

It added: "Therefore, the provision confers on members of the public a right of access to the Commons, provided that it is exercised by going onto the Commons on foot or on horseback, for the purpose of camping there."

The court also noted that regulations that section 10(1) is subject to do not prohibit camping.

Furthermore, it found that the words "on foot and on horseback" in section 10(1) describe the means by which the public is to have a right to gain access to the commons.

The judgment said: "They do not qualify the words which follow which describe what that right is given for: 'for the purpose of open-air recreation'.

"Those words state in general terms according to their ordinary meaning the purpose for which access to the Commons may be had by those means."

Accordingly, the court did not accept the appellants' submission that the open-air recreation in question can only be in forms which are pursued by proceeding on foot or on horseback so that, for example, one would have no right to stop to have a picnic.

The appellants also sought to rely on statements in Hansard to aid their arguments, but the Supreme Court did not accept their argument.

In addition, the appellants attempted to support their submission as to the correct interpretation of section 10(1) by relying on the principle of legality on the basis that their right to protect their private property by pursuing an action in trespass against individuals who wild camp on their property could only be restricted by clear statutory words showing that Parliament has squarely confronted what it was doing and accepted the political cost.

However, the court concluded that the principle of legality did not assist the appellants.

Lord Sales and Lord Stephens gave the judgment, with which the other members of the court agreed.

Responding to the judgment, Dr Kevin Bishop, Chief Executive of Dartmoor National Park Authority, expressed "delight" over the ruling and thanked the national park's legal team, which included Richard Honey KC and Vivienne Sedgley.

Bishop added: "The judgment reaffirms our long-held belief for the public's right to backpack camp on certain commons and, importantly, our role in regulating and managing that access.

"It is important to note that it is not a blanket right to camp wherever, or do whatever, you want.

"With the right comes a responsibility to make sure that you tread lightly and leave no trace."

The Open Spaces Society's general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, meanwhile called for the right to wildcamp to be extended to all national parks.

She said: "If Darwall v Dartmoor is to be a truly landmark decision, the government must act to ensure a right to sleep under the stars applies to all national parks and wild country.

"We shall campaign with other organisations to achieve this. The government is dragging its feet on the issue of improved public access.

"The Supreme Court's decision is generously and robustly argued. We must now stimulate ministers to legislate in the same spirit across our countryside."

Adam Carey