LONDON, UK — Tensions between public access and private ownership on Dartmoor escalated as a significant legal challenge reached the Supreme Court. The case, instigated by multimillionaire hedge fund manager Alexander Darwall, seeks to redefine what activities are permissible on the moorlands, potentially setting a precedent that could impact outdoor recreation across England.
Dartmoor, known for its vast, rugged landscapes, has historically been a haven for outdoor enthusiasts seeking to experience the freedom of wild camping and other recreational activities without the constraints typically imposed by private land ownership. However, the crux of the ongoing legal battle centers on the interpretation of the Dartmoor Commons Act. This legislation grants public “access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation,” a phrase whose scope is now under intense scrutiny.
Representing Darwall, Timothy Morshead KC argued at Tuesday’s hearing that the law does not extend to activities such as picnicking or camping without explicit permission from landowners. According to Morshead, such activities would constitute trespassing, challenging long-held assumptions about the rights the public holds over these lands.
The case initially sparked controversy last January when a ruling suddenly revoked the public’s right to camp, a reversal from the understanding in place since 1985. Though overturned in July by the Court of Appeal, which re-affirmed wild camping as a permissible form of open-air recreation, the case ascended to the Supreme Court, reflecting its significant implications.
During the proceedings, Supreme Court Justice Lord Stephens queried Morshead on the extent of activities allowed without breaching the act. Morshead’s interpretation suggested even resting during a walk could breach legal rights if it transitions into picnicking, thereby framing the act’s allowances very narrowly.
Outside the courtroom, the issue has rallied activists and nature enthusiasts, prompting protests emphasizing the cultural and historical importance of open access to Dartmoor. Protesters argue that such legal limitations not only undermine traditional practices but could also restrict access to natural spaces nationwide, should the ruling favor restrictive interpretations.
Supporting a broad interpretation of the law, the Open Spaces Society submitted warnings to the court about the case’s broader impacts. They stressed that a decision against open-air recreation extends beyond camping, potentially restricting activities like bird watching and rock climbing, which have become part of the mosaic of public land use.
Darwall’s stance, as articulated before the hearing, highlights concerns over environmental damage and safety risks posed by unregulated camping. He points to issues such as wildfires and habitat disruption from improper camping practices, arguing for more controlled access to protect the land.
Amidst legal arguments, the national debate continues regarding the balance between conserving nature and granting public access. The Labour government faces pressure from conservationists and campaigners like Dr. Rose O’Neill, CEO of the Campaign for National Parks, who advocate for expanded wild camping rights to honor the historical foundations of national parks as spaces for public enjoyment and interaction with nature.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, a ruling is awaited that will not only determine the future of Dartmoor but also potentially reshape the interaction between private landholders and the public across England’s storied landscapes. The decision will have lasting impacts on national policy, conservation efforts, and the recreational habits of millions, marking a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about public space and private rights.