What is the Dartmoor wild camping dispute? UK Supreme Court restores public right to the camp
In a landmark decision, the
UK Supreme Court
has ruled that wild camping is legal on
Dartmoor
, restoring a long-standing public right that had been challenged by a wealthy landowner. The ruling concludes a two-year legal battle initiated by hedge fund manager Alexander Darwall, who sought to ban camping on his 4,000-acre estate in Dartmoor National Park.
The court held that the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 allows for wild camping as a legitimate form of 'open-air recreation.' This decision marks a significant victory for land access rights in England.
The legal battle over wild camping at Dartamoor
Alexander Darwall, Dartmoor's sixth-largest landowner, purchased the Blachford estate in 2013. He objected to people camping on his land without permission, citing concerns about conservation and livestock safety.
In 2023, Darwall won in the High Court, which ruled that wild camping was not covered under existing public access rights. This triggered widespread backlash and an appeal from the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), supported by public protests and land rights activists.
Supreme Court clarifies 'open-air recreation'
The case hinged on the interpretation of the term 'open-air recreation' under the Dartmoor Commons Act. Darwall's legal team argued for a narrow definition limited to walking and horseback riding.
In contrast, the DNPA and campaigners contended that activities like camping, picnicking, and bird watching were valid recreational uses. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the broader interpretation, concluding that wild camping is a legitimate form of enjoying Dartmoor's natural beauty.
Public reaction and campaigner response
The ruling has been celebrated by activists and local communities. Thousands had camped in protest over the past year to assert their right to access Dartmoor.
Campaigners from the Right to Roam group hailed the decision as a 'relief,' while highlighting the fragility of access laws in England. MP Caroline Voaden called the judgment a 'vindication' and urged further legislative action to extend wild camping rights across the UK.
Calls for national access reform
Following the decision, campaigners are pushing for a new Right to Roam Act that would expand public access to nature beyond Dartmoor. Labour had previously promised such reforms while in opposition but has yet to include them in its current manifesto.
The Supreme Court's verdict has renewed pressure on the government to ensure that public access rights are protected and expanded for future generations.
A victory for Dartmoor and public access
Kevin Bishop, CEO of the DNPA, welcomed the ruling, emphasizing that national parks are meant to serve all people, not just a privileged few. He assured that responsible access would be promoted, balancing the needs of landowners and the public. The Supreme Court's decision secures the unique tradition of wild camping in Dartmoor and sets a precedent for broader land access rights in England.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI — The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options.
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
New US travel ban expected to better withstand legal challenges
President Trump at the White House. His administration says several countries barred by the latest travel ban have unacceptably high temporary-visa overstay rates. President Trump's second-term travel ban is expected to be harder to fight in court than previous iterations, after the Trump administration heeded lessons from a first-term court battle over the policy's legality. Trump's initial travel ban launched one of the most defining fights of his first term. It banned travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, sparking turmoil at airports across the U.S., a torrent of lawsuits and three trips to the Supreme Court. This time around, the travel ban signed Wednesday night affects 12 countries, largely in the Middle East and Africa. It has so far been met with consternation from immigration advocates, but no high-profile litigation was filed by early Thursday evening. Trump's first version of the travel ban drew challenges during the first 24 hours. The American Civil Liberties Union, which led lawsuits against the policy under Trump's first administration, described the new travel ban as 'an attempt to further eviscerate lawful immigration pathways under the false guise of national security." But the organization, which is challenging numerous other Trump immigration policies, didn't sue Thursday. The new proclamation is still likely to invite challenges, but legal experts said the trials and tribulations from the first term—which led to an eventual Supreme Court green light in 2018—made this ban less susceptible to scrutiny. 'The Trump administration learned its lessons," said Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia University Law School who worked on the initial challenge to Trump's January 2017 ban. The first two versions of the travel ban floundered in the courts over claims the administration was motivated by racial and religious bias in choosing countries to include. Trump made several comments calling for a ban on Muslim travelers before the initial executive order. The Supreme Court in 2018 found the ban was justifiable on independent national-security grounds. In its Wednesday proclamation, the administration said several of the countries have unacceptably high temporary-visa overstay rates, necessitating a ban on more of their nationals entering the U.S. Others, it said, couldn't be relied upon to issue valid passports to verify a person's identity. Providing the rationale for inclusion is a crucial update between this ban and the earlier incarnations, retired Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr said. 'They're basically following the Supreme Court's decision in 2018 that as long as the president can show some reasons why a country was put on the travel ban, that would probably be legitimate under the very loose bona fide, legitimate reason test," he said. 'All presidents have wide discretion when it comes to immigration and national security." The new ban applies only to people outside the U.S., though anyone in the country on an active visa who leaves the country stands to face difficulty returning while it is in effect. The ban also allows for some narrow exceptions, including for athletes and necessary staff planning to travel to the U.S. for the World Cup or Olympics. The administration also carved out an exception for a small number of Afghans who qualify for a special immigrant visa, a specific designation for Afghans who worked alongside the U.S. military during its two-decade presence in that country. But most Afghans who were attempting to move to the U.S. as refugees or through certain legal pathways to join family could end up out of luck, advocates say, even those who were affiliated with other Western organizations. The ban signed Wednesday is set to go into effect Monday. The first travel ban had a chaotic impact within hours, as activists and lawyers rushed to represent travelers caught off guard at airports. University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq said the rationale for including countries might still open the administration to challenges, but the Supreme Court's 2018 order suggests the justices will have a high bar for blocking it. That ruling affirmed the wide discretion immigration laws give to the president, and the court's recent rulings in other immigration cases underscored the justices' 'unwillingness to look under the hood of the assertions," he said. 'So it may well be the case that all of these countries do have adequate screening procedures, whatever adequate means here, but the chance the court will rule on that question of fact seems, to me, pretty low," Huq said. In 2020, Trump expanded the ban that was blessed by the Supreme Court to include six additional countries mostly in Africa, including three on the current list. That move largely went unchallenged given global travel came to a halt soon after because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Write to Mariah Timms at and Michelle Hackman at
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump reinstates US travel ban, bars citizens of 12 countries
WASHINGTON -U.S. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning the citizens of 12 countries from entering the United States, saying the move was needed to protect against "foreign terrorists" and other security threats. The directive is part of an immigration crackdown Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students and deport others. The countries affected by the latest travel ban are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - will be partially restricted. "We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm," Trump said in a video posted on X. He said the list could be revised and new countries could be added. The proclamation is effective on June 9, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT . Visas issued before that date will not be revoked, the order said. The African Union's Commission expressed concern on Thursday about the potential negative impact of the new travel ban on educational exchanges, commercial engagement and broader diplomatic relations. In retaliation, Chad's President Idriss Deby instructed his government to stop issuing visas to U.S. citizens. Congo Republic's government spokesperson Thierry Moungalla said his country's inclusion was a "misunderstanding." "Congo is neither a terrorist state, nor does it harbor any terrorists, or known for having any terrorist tendencies," Moungalla told journalists. During his first, 2017-21 term in office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Former President Joe Biden, a Democrat who succeeded Trump, repealed that ban on nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen in 2021, calling it "a stain on our national conscience". Trump said the countries subject to the most severe restrictions were determined to harbor a "large-scale presence of terrorists," fail to cooperate on visa security, have an inability to verify travelers' identities, inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories and high rates of visa overstays in the United States. "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States," Trump said. He cited Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado in which a man tossed a gasoline bomb into a crowd of pro-Israel demonstrators as an example of why the new curbs are needed. An Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, has been charged in the attack. Federal officials said Soliman had overstayed his tourist visa and had an expired work permit - although Egypt is not on the list of countries facing travel limits. BEING IN THE U.S. A 'BIG RISK' Somalia immediately pledged to work with the U.S. to address security issues. "Somalia values its longstanding relationship with the United States and stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised," Dahir Hassan Abdi, the Somali ambassador to the United States, said in a statement. Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, a close ally of President Nicolas Maduro, responded on Wednesday evening by describing the U.S. government as fascist and warning Venezuelans against being in the United States. "The truth is being in the United States is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans ... They persecute our countrymen, our people for no reason." A spokesperson for the Taliban-led Afghan foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Pakistan's foreign ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment on how it would handle the thousands of Afghans waiting in Islamabad who had been in the pipeline for U.S. resettlement. Calls early on Thursday to the spokesperson for Myanmar's military government were not answered. The travel ban threatens to upend a 31-year-old Myanmar teacher's plan to join a U.S. State Department exchange program, which was slated to start in September. "It is not easy to apply nor get accepted as we needed several recommendation letters," said the teacher, who currently lives in Thailand and asked not to be named because her visa application is still outstanding. "In my case, I would get to work at universities that provide digital education," she said, adding that she had not been updated by the program after Trump's announcement. Trump's presidential campaign focused on a tough border strategy and he previewed his plan in an October 2023 speech, pledging to restrict people from the Gaza Strip, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and "anywhere else that threatens our security."
