The case concerned the meaning of s10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which provides that “the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation”.

Lord Sales and Lord Stephens JJSC held that there were several indications that wild camping by individuals who have entered the commons on foot or on horseback is made a matter of entitlement by s10(1) of the Act:

-  As a matter of ordinary language, camping is a form of open air recreation;

-  The opening words of s10(1) contemplates that the primary restriction of the right of access is by forms of regulations, which, at the time the 1985 Act was passed, did not prohibit camping; and

-  The words “on foot and on horseback” describe the means by which a person enters the commons, and do not qualify what counts as “open air recreation” that can be enjoyed having gained access in that way.

The Supreme Court also reached the following conclusions:

-  The absence of any qualification of “public access” in the long title to the Act indicates that what is being regulated is public access for a wider range of activities;

-  The relevant statutory history, namely s.193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, supports the conclusion that camping is naturally taken to be included within the concept of “open-air recreation”;

-  The Appellants could not rely on statements in Hansard, since the rule in Pepper v Hart was not satisfied;

-  The Appellants were not assisted by the principle of legality, as the wording of the 1985 Act was clear; and

-  The High Court should not have granted a declaration that s.10(1) of the 1985 Act did not confer on “the public” a right to pitch tents or camp overnight in circumstances where the public were not a party to the proceedings by their representative the Attorney General.

This case is likely to be of wider legal interest for its discussion of the nature of public rights of access for open-air recreation, its discussion of the need to ensure that the public are represented by the Attorney General where the subsisting and future legal rights of the public are at issue, and – more generally – discussion of the correct approach to statutory interpretation. On the latter point, the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that a statement in Hansard could be admissible otherwise than pursuant to the rule in Pepper v Hart: there was no alternative legal basis that permitted the use of statements in Parliament to identify the background, purpose or mischief at which an Act is aimed.

Richard Honey KC appeared for the successful respondent, the Dartmoor National Park Authority, leading Vivienne Sedgley.

Ned Westaway, Esther Drabkin-Reiter and Stephanie Bruce-Smith acted for the intervener, the Open Spaces Society, instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors.