But the broader issue was how far the public may go in enjoying the open countryside, and on whose terms. The case attracted national press attention, and lead to calls for a broader “right to roam” to be recognised in England. Notably, and by contrast, Scotland passed legislation in 2003 to establish statutory public rights of access to land for recreational and other purposes (Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003).

Dartmoor occupies an unusual place in that debate. It is the only part of England and Wales where the public has long been able to camp without the landowner's permission. The challenge that reached the Supreme Court — brought by two landowners — raised the prospect that a long-standing tradition could be curtailed, and prompted wider reflection on how limited the right of access to nature remains in England. The landowners also relied on the prospect of wild camping harming the countryside, which draws out the potential tension the need to preserve the countryside and allow for its enjoyment by the public.

Commenting on the case, Stephanie Bruce-Smith observed “Whilst this case concerned the statutory construction of legislation specific to the Dartmoor Commons, it was interesting to see how it sparked a wider public debate on access to the countryside. It is clear from the media attention that this case prompted deeper reflections on how we relate to nature, and how the law governs that relationship.”

Barristers at FTB represented the successful Dartmoor National Park Authority (the Respondent), and the Open Spaces Society (the Intervener)