Supreme Court to hear Dartmoor ‘right to camp’ case next week

The Supreme Court will next week (8 October) hear the landowners’ appeal in a dispute over the lawfulness of wild camping on Dartmoor.

The Court said the case of Dartmoor National Park Authority (Respondent) v Darwall and another (Appellants) concerns the rights established by section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (the Act).

The Dartmoor National Park was designated as a national park in 1951. Within Dartmoor National Park, there are areas of moorland which are privately owned but on which other locals have the right to put their livestock (the "Commons").

The appellants are farmers, landowners and commoners who have owned and lived at Blachford Manor, on Dartmoor, since 2013. Their land includes a section of land called "Stall Moor", which is in the Commons and which they use to graze livestock.

In Autumn 2021, Dartmoor National Park Authority consulted the public on amendments it proposed to make to the byelaws relating to Dartmoor.

However, the appellants had become concerned about the potential harm of camping on the Commons near Stall Moor. They claimed that the right of access established by section 10(1) of the Act does not extend to a right for the public to camp or wild camp but Dartmoor National Park Authority disagreed.

The appellants brought a claim, seeking a declaration that section 10(1) of the Act 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.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court and held that section 10(1) does confer a right to engage in wild camping.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The issues in Dartmoor National Park Authority v Darwall and another are:

1. Was the Court of Appeal's interpretation of section 10(1) of the Act wrong because it did not: (a) correctly look to the issue the Act was intended to address, in the context of reviewing appropriate background materials; or (b) interpret the Act consistently with relevant legal principles (including the principle of legality and the principle against expropriation)?
2. Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that Pepper v Hart could not apply or did not assist the Appellants?

The Open Spaces Society has been given permission to intervene.

A Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler will hear the case.