Courts go wild for Dartmoor campers
Is sleeping a leisure activity?
This is the question the Supreme Court had to consider when it handed down its judgment in May of this year, in the case of Darwall and another v National Park Authority.
Who are the Darwalls and why did they bring this case?
Alexander Darwall is a hedge fund manager and, together with his wife Diana, ranks among the largest landowners on Dartmoor. Their estate encompasses land registered as part of the Dartmoor Commons. The Dartmoor Commons are areas of unenclosed moorland within the Dartmoor National Park which are privately owned, but which the public have some rights over. In particular, the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 grants the public a “right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation”.
In 2022, following a public consultation by the Dartmoor National Park Authority on proposed amendments to the byelaws regulating activities within the park, the Darwalls launched legal proceedings seeking a declaration to challenge the introduction of rules they argued would unlawfully restrict their property rights – particularly targeting the right to wild camp on their land.
Wild camping involves pitching a tent and sleeping overnight in the countryside, outside designated campsites. It has surged in popularity in recent years and the Darwalls claimed that wild campers had caused a host of problems by leaving litter, damaging vegetation and causing disturbance.
What did the Darwalls argue?
The Darwalls argued that the phrase “on foot and on horseback” not only described how the public could access the commons, but also restricted the types of recreational activities to those undertaken whilst walking or riding a horse. They contended that activities such as wild camping and picnicking were not included in this scope, and that wild camping could not fall within the definition of open-air recreation anyway because “sleeping overnight on the commons is not recreation, open-air or otherwise, because you are just asleep”.
What did the Dartmoor National Park Authority argue?
The DNPA argued that this interpretation was too narrow. They submitted that the words “on foot and on horseback” referred to the means of access to the Commons, and the intention was not to limit or define the form of open-air recreation which could be undertaken once access had been gained – which included wild camping.
What did the court say?
The High Court agreed with the Darwalls and held that the Dartmoor Commons Act did not confer a public right to wild camp. The DNPA appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court judgment. The Court of Appeal agreed with the DNPA and ruled that the Act allows members of the public to enjoy open-air recreation on Dartmoor – as long as they travel on foot or horseback – and confirmed that wild camping counts as one of those recreational activities.
The Darwalls appealed against the Court of Appeal judgment, leaving the Supreme Court to grapple with the issue. They were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the public’s right to wild camp on Dartmoor Commons without landowner permission. It went so far as to say that the Darwalls’ interpretation was “absurd” and cannot have been what Parliament intended.
What does this mean?
Whilst the case is specific to Dartmoor, it is an interesting case of statutory interpretation which shows that the courts are unwilling to look behind a piece of legislation if the wording is clear, as they considered it was here.
The Supreme Court undertook a close textual analysis of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 and related legislation, carefully examining the statutory language to determine Parliament’s intended purpose. This approach supported the conclusion that “recreation” was meant to encompass a broad range of open-air activities. The court declined to admit references to Hansard on the basis that the language was clear and unambiguous. The words, it said, should be interpreted according to their natural and ordinary meaning.
The case is a victory for both wild campers and a purposive, commonsense approach to statutory interpretation.
Subcribe to news and views"Sleeping overnight on the commons is not recreation, open-air or otherwise, because you are just asleep"
