Public has the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, Supreme Court rules
The public does have the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Five justices unanimously ruled on Wednesday that the term 'recreation' in the law governing the use of the national park in Devon is used 'without qualification as to the form which it should take'.
Two landowners, Alexander and Diana Darwall, had challenged a Court of Appeal ruling at the UK's highest court, which said the law allows the public to camp on the Dartmoor Commons, provided bylaws are followed.
Mr and Mrs Darwall keep cattle on Stall Moor, which forms part of their more than 3,450-acre estate in the southern part of the national park.
The case concerned the interpretation of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which says 'the public shall have the right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation' on the commons.
Their lawyers told the Supreme Court last October that some campers cause problems to livestock and the environment, and that the law only gives the public access on foot and horseback, 'which naturally means walking and riding'.
The Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) opposed the challenge, with its lawyers labelling the suggestion that erecting a tent could damage land and vegetation 'absurd'.
In their judgment, Lords Sales and Stephens said the law would make 'no sense' if the right of recreation given to the public was 'limited in the manner contended for' by the Darwalls, and that the concept of 'open-air recreation' was 'wide'.
They said in a ruling backed by Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler: 'The word 'recreation' is used here without qualification as to the form which it should take.
'It is not confined to recreation taken by means of walking or riding.'
Dartmoor National Park, designated in 1951, covers a 368-square-mile area which features 'commons' – areas of unenclosed, privately-owned moorland where locals can put livestock.
In January 2023, High Court judge Sir Julian Flaux ruled that the 1985 Act did not allow people to pitch tents overnight on the Dartmoor commons without landowners' permission.
But campaigners argued the decision 'went too far' and was a 'huge step backward', and could affect bird-watching, fishing and other activities.
The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in July that year after a challenge by the DNPA, with three senior judges ruling that the law 'confers on members of the public the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise'.
Sir Geoffrey Vos said in the judgment that the 'critical question' was whether wild camping could be considered a form of 'open-air recreation', finding it was.
In written submissions for the Supreme Court hearing last year, Timothy Morshead KC, for the Darwalls, said the couple are 'not motivated by a desire to stop camping on Dartmoor'.
But he said: 'Concerns arise from their responsibilities as stewards of the land in their ownership and over which they have commoners' rights: concerns about the damage that wild camping can cause and, in particular, about the significant risk of fire associated with it.'
But barristers for the DNPA said the phrase 'on foot' means 'the access to the commons should be pedestrian and not vehicular'.
In written submissions, Richard Honey KC said: 'The suggestion that merely erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping damages the land and vegetation is absurd.'
Lord Sales and Lord Stephens said in their ruling that the term 'open-air recreation' should be read widely, because otherwise it would 'create an unjustified and unrealistic limit on the park authority's power to repair damage on the commons'.
They continued: 'Whilst there are restrictions on the landowners' property rights, there is in return DNPA's power to prevent, and enforce against, problematic camping by virtue of its ability to make and enforce bylaws and to publish notices.
'Accordingly, the legislation puts in place the means for public regulation of use of the commons which is in practice likely to be more effective in protecting the land than attempts by private persons to challenge such use through themselves having to confront people on their land and then bring a claim in private law.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
4 days ago
- Leader Live
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries
The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired. 'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. 'To include Afghanistan – a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years – is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote. The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution. Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America. The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- The Guardian
Why is there such a generational divide in views on sex and gender in Britain?
Differing attitudes to women's and transgender rights activism are often said to be generational. One poll, published a month on from the supreme court ruling that the legal definition of 'woman' in the Equality Act is based on biological sex, found 63% supportive of the ruling and 18% opposed. But younger people were far more likely to be in the latter camp, with 53% of 18- to 24-year-olds disagreeing with the judgment. In my age group, 50-64, the figure was just 13%. Such results echo earlier polls. As with any attempt to link a demographic with a point of view, there are plenty of exceptions. Last month Lady Hale, the octogenarian former president of the supreme court, became one of them when she argued that the ruling had been misinterpreted, telling a literary festival she had met doctors 'who said there is no such thing as biological sex'. The progressive explanation for the age gap is in the name: progress. As the arc of history bends towards justice, younger people are ahead of the curve. Social scientists call this a cohort effect, which basically means that when you are born is one of the influences (along with income, education and so on) on your politics. In relation to transgender rights, the reasoning is that people born since the 1980s are more relaxed about sex and sexuality, and more committed to personal freedoms including the right to define one's own identity. The obvious catch to this analysis, at the moment, is the way some young men have swung towards the hard right. If a cohort effect applies when it comes to gender, and assuming that future cohorts are in agreement, gender identity advocates can look forward to winning this argument eventually. Older, conservative voters (and politicians and judges and journalists such as me), who don't think someone's trans identity should take precedence over their biological sex when society decides which sports teams or prisons they belong in, are just causing a delay. This was the view endorsed by David Lammy in 2021 when he said there were 'dinosaurs […] in our own party' who want to 'hoard rights'. The extinction of such people would, he implied, sort things out in the end. Along with other middle-aged, gender-critical women, I have got used to dismissals such as Lammy's. One of us, Victoria Smith, wrote a book about such attitudes and called it Hags. But terminology aside, I think those who characterise this struggle as being between young progressives and ageing reactionaries are mistaken. While I fully support transgender people's right to be protected from discrimination, I don't regard the erosion of sex-based entitlements – including single-sex sports and spaces – in favour of an ethos of 'inclusion' as either liberal or leftwing. On the contrary, I think valuing inclusion over bodily privacy (in changing rooms) or fairness (in sports) is sexist – since women are more disadvantaged by these changes than men. And while gender identity campaigners claim autonomy and choice as progressive, even socialist, values, I see their emphasis on the individual's right to self-definition as congruent with consumer capitalism. Multinational corporations, including banks and retailers, embrace Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index and fly Progress Pride flags from their buildings because the shift away from the class politics of redistribution towards the identity politics of personal expression suits them. In 2023 the 40th British Social Attitudes survey described the widening age gap in UK politics as 'a puzzle', with changing party loyalties only partly mirrored in answers to questions seeking to place people on a left-right spectrum or a liberal-authoritarian one. To anyone looking for answers to the question of why such age differences exist – in relation to the supreme court or other issues – I would suggest that as well as cohorts (gen X versus Z and so on), they should consider the life cycle. Clearly, some things matter more to people as they get older, pensions being an obvious example. What if biological sex is another? This rings true with aspects of my own experience. For example, it wasn't until I had children that I learned about birth injuries, came face to face with pregnancy and maternity discrimination, or understood that the gender pay gap is also a motherhood penalty. It's not that I hadn't been aware of my female body before this. But one of the things about having babies is the way that the biological and social become so enmeshed. More recently, I've become fascinated by female evolutionary thinkers such as Sarah Hrdy, whose life's work has been to explore this tangle. Now, at 53, there is menopause and ageing. Most weeks my yoga teacher has something to say about the importance for women of strength-building exercises to ward off osteoporosis; of keeping our femur bones firmly in our hip sockets and using muscles to hold our reproductive organs in place. That male and female bodies go wrong in different ways is nothing new: the most common cancer for women worldwide is breast cancer, while in England prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed in men. What has only recently become better known, thanks to advances in medical research and campaigners such as Caroline Criado Perez, is that even when we get the same diseases there are differences, with examples including heart disease, Parkinson's and dementia. As with reproduction, later-life physiological divergences have social and economic consequences. Social care is a feminist issue due to women's greater longevity, as well as the sector's predominantly female workforce. Most of the poorest pensioners are single women as many wives outlive their husbands, but also because of lower average lifetime earnings linked to women taking breaks from employment to care for children. And what about men? Like women, the older they are, the less likely they are to tell pollsters that gender identity should replace biological sex as a legal and social category. This makes sense to me, since my argument is that consciousness of sexual difference accumulates across the life-course. The fact that men are far less likely to be actively involved in campaigning on this issue than gender-critical women – even when they agree with us – is also easy to understand. Now, as in the past, men need legal protection against sex-based discrimination, abuse or injustice much less often than women. I don't presume to predict that today's gender identity activists will one day change their minds. But it has never seemed clearer to me than it does now that women and men have some different needs and experiences that the law must recognise. Far from an old fogey's statute, I think the 15-year-old Equality Act, with its staunch protection of sex-based rights, is full of life. Susanna Rustin is a social affairs journalist and the author of Sexed: A History of British Feminism
Western Telegraph
4 days ago
- Western Telegraph
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries
The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. To include Afghanistan - a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years - is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold Shawn VanDiver, #AfghanEvac In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Mr Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired. 'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. 'To include Afghanistan – a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years – is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote. The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution. This policy is not about national security - it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America. The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.
