“Mr Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound.”
— Dr Watson, The Hound of the Baskervilles
There are places in England where the fog never quite lifts. Where stone outcrops rise like the bones of old gods, and the wind mutters terrible secrets. Dartmoor is such a place.
When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle sent Holmes and Watson to Dartmoor to unravel the legend of the Baskerville curse, he cloaked the moor in mist and menace. The real danger, of course, was never the eponymous and spectral Hound of the Baskervilles—it was the inheritance-hungry hand behind it. Greed masquerading as something more.
Dartmoor’s legal right to wild camp—long exercised, briefly extinguished, and now reaffirmed—has been the subject of a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority. The judgment confirms the public’s statutory right to camp overnight on Dartmoor Commons without landowner permission.
The Supreme Court’s Judgment on Dartmoor Access
In Darwall and another v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20, the Supreme Court confirmed that section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 grants the public a right of access for “open-air recreation“—and that this includes wild camping.
The claim was brought by Alexander and Diana Darwall, owners of Blachford Manor, a 4,000-acre estate on Dartmoor acquired in 2013. Their land includes Stall Moor, part of the registered Dartmoor Commons. Although privately owned, this land is subject to statutory public access rights.
In 2021, the Darwalls objected to the growing use of the moor for wild camping. They argued it caused environmental damage, disrupted grazing livestock, and amounted to trespass. When the Dartmoor National Park Authority declined to endorse their interpretation of the law, they issued proceedings, seeking a declaration that wild camping was not permitted under section 10(1).
In January 2023, the High Court found in their favour. But in July 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in May 2025.
“As a matter of ordinary language, camping is a form of ‘open-air recreation’.”
— §17(i)
“The words ‘on foot and on horseback’… do not qualify the words which follow: ‘for the purpose of open-air recreation.’”
— §17(iii)
The Court made clear: the statute permits entry to the commons on foot or horseback, and allows for any form of open-air recreation thereafter, including lawful wild camping. The right is not implied. It is explicit, once properly understood.
Dartmoor National Park and the Right to Camp
Dartmoor National Park was established in 1951 and is one of the few remaining places in England where wild camping had, for decades, been accepted as part of public access.
This case did not arise from a gap in the law, but from a challenge to its accepted meaning. The Darwalls sought to restrict a public right that had been exercised without controversy for generations. The issue, in essence, was not misuse, but authority.
The Court confirmed that the right had been there all along—not as a gift of custom, but as a proper reading of statute. Where Parliament has spoken, private objections yield.
What the Supreme Court Said About Wild Camping
The Supreme Court emphasised that the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 establishes a statutory framework for access, managed through regulation by public authority.
“The legislative model is that activities carried out by the public on the Commons should be subject to forms of general public regulation… It is implicit that it is not appropriate for landowners to enforce additional restrictions via the law of trespass.”
— §17(ii)
At no point did the byelaws prohibit camping. And where Parliament had previously intended to exclude camping (as in other statutes), it had done so explicitly. The absence of such language in the 1985 Act was deliberate.
Camping, properly conducted, falls within the concept of open-air recreation. The Act leaves room for control by public authority—but not by individual proprietors.
Who Speaks for the Public?
A further point, procedural but important: the Darwalls sought a declaration that would affect the public at large, but the public had no voice in the proceedings. The Court cautioned:
“A declaration in those terms purporting to bind the public ought not to have been granted when the Attorney General was not a party.”
— §59
It was a reminder that access rights are constitutional in character. They are not easily extinguished in private litigation.
A Note for Conveyancers
For property practitioners, the decision carries several practical reminders:
- Public access may override assumed exclusivity. Clients purchasing land within commons or national parks should be advised that statutory rights can limit the right to exclude.
- Recreational use is interpreted broadly. Walking, camping, sketching and similar uses fall within the meaning of “open-air recreation.” The charge register may not reflect all burdens.
- Declarations affecting public rights require appropriate parties. When the public interest is in play, it must be properly represented—typically by the Attorney General.
- Statutory purpose matters. Courts will favour a reading consistent with legislative intent and public benefit.
This is not just about camping. It is about recognising that ownership is sometimes shared by statute. The land may be private, but the right to walk it—and yes, to sleep upon it—can belong to everyone.
What This Supreme Court Case Means
- Wild camping on Dartmoor Commons is lawful without landowner permission.
- The right derives from section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985.
- The public may camp provided they access on foot or horseback and comply with byelaws.
- Landowners may not restrict this right through trespass claims.
- Public access is regulated by the National Park Authority, not individual estate owners.
The Moor Is Open
The Supreme Court has confirmed what many long believed: the public has a lawful right to wild camp on Dartmoor Commons, without landowner permission, provided they arrive on foot or horseback and follow any applicable byelaws.
Not a romantic indulgence, but a lawful entitlement. This was not a case about tents. It was about interpretation, regulation, and the reach of public law.
Contact our Residential Property team
For more information about Bishop & Sewell’s residential property services please contact Charlie Davidson Senior Associate in the firm’s Residential Property team: cdavidson@bishopandsewell.co.uk or follow Charlie on LinkedIn.
The above is accurate as at 28 May 2025. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
