0
Is camping on the Dartmoor Commons by statutory right, pursuant to s.10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, making them the only place in England and Wales affected by public right to camp? Or is the long-standing practice of camping on Dartmoor explained not by the modern statute, but by the tolerance and consent of landowners?
The Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux, thought that it was the latter. The Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Underhill LJ and Newey LJ) reached the contrary view. The landowners – motivated to bring a claim by the National Park Authority’s consultation on byelaws relating to camping and by concern about the risk of fire and to livestock resulting from camping – appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on 21 May 2025 [2025] UKSC 20. It has attracted widespread coverage in the national press, including the BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Spectator, and The Daily Mail. It has also fired up the national debate about whether a public right to camp should be extended to other parts of England and Wales (see The Times).
Section 10(1) of the 1985 Act provided that “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 on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation…”.
The landowners’ case (which found favour with the Chancellor) was that the section granted a right to be on the commons for recreational purposes, but that the recreation had to be taken on foot or horseback. This was consistent with the background materials to the Act, which demonstrated that the Dartmoor Commons had long been widely used by the public for walking and riding with the consent or tolerance of landowners, but that there was a call for such use should be put on a statutory footing. The relevant Parliamentary material disclosed that Parliament was being asked only to grant a right to walkers and horse riders to use the Commons. All other uses were to proceed on the same footing as before: with the tolerance or permission of landowners.
The Supreme Court (Lords Sales and Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agreed) held that the language of section 10(1) of the Act is unambiguous and includes a right to camp – provided that access to the Dartmoor Commons is first obtained on foot or horseback. Given that unambiguity, no weight could be placed on the Parliamentary materials. The Supreme Court found that the other background materials shed no light on the question one way or the other. The Dartmoor Commons are thus the only place in England and Wales affected by a public right to camp.
Of particular interest to practitioners will be the analysis of the admissibility of Hansard materials as an external aid to the construction of statutes: paragraphs 39 to 43 of the Judgment. The Supreme Court held that the practice of considering Parliamentary materials as part of the background to an enactment so as to identify the mischief at which it is aimed and the purpose for which it is enacted – distinct from the use of an unambiguous ministerial statement under the ‘rule’ in Pepper v Hart – is impermissible. In other words, the Supreme Court held, Parliamentary materials are admissible only if the Pepper v Hart conditions are satisfied.
Tim Morshead KC and Tom Morris acted for the Appellants, instructed by James Pavey of Irwin Mitchell LLP.
The judgment can be found here, and the Supreme Court’s press summary here. The argument can be watched here.
