Wild camping is allowed on Dartmoor National Park, holds Supreme Court

On Wednesday 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court released their judgment in Darwall v Dartmoor Park Authority. The Darwalls had appealed the Court of Appeal's judgment from 2023 which held that wild camping was a form of “open-air recreation” that is permitted on the Dartmoor Commons (see my previous article detailing a brief background of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments: Wild camping and the recent decision in Darwall v Dartmoor National Park).

This appeal was fundamentally a question of statutory interpretation, with potentially significant implications for the long-standing ability for the public to access and camp on Dartmoor National Park. The Supreme Court was unanimous in its dismissal of the appellant’s position: section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 is clear and unambiguous in its intention to provide a right of access for the public, which includes the ability to wild camp as “open-air recreation”.  

Whilst both parties deployed various arguments as to the statutory aids that could be relied upon in support of their contentions, many of which are addressed by the Supreme Court in their judgment and make for an interesting review of how to approach statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the conclusion could be arrived at from the clear wording of section 10(1) itself.  

The Supreme Court refers in its judgment to the long titles of both the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (which establishes Dartmoor as a National Park) and the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. These long titles include that the Acts are “to make further provision… for securing access to open country” and “to regulate public access to the commons”. The dismissal of this appeal supports a wide interpretation of access to and recreation in the countryside, subject to regulations which also protect livestock and the environment.

In practice, the outcome should serve to prevent some potentially absurd results – i.e. that any form of stopping or resting on the Commons is not allowed, such as having a picnic or bird watching, which could have led to arguments and potentially costly satellite litigation by landowners on the Commons. 

Interestingly, despite not granting the appellants the relief sought, the Supreme Court also touched upon the fact that the Attorney General should have been joined as a party to the proceedings on behalf of the public where the effect of the relief sought would have been to bind the public. This serves as a reminder to practitioners to carefully consider the impact of the relief being sought and make sure that the relevant parties are involved in the proceedings to prevent issues with enforcement.

This matter has sparked great interest in rights of access to the countryside, and following the Court of Appeal judgment in 2023, Labour indicated an intention to legislate for wider public access rights across other National Parks. It will be interesting to see if the publicity around this appeal will lead to a broader review of public access to land and the legislation regulating this.