NEWS: Dartmoor Latest: National Park to Appeal Court Ruling

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Mark Kemball 27 Jan 2023

The Dartmoor National Park has decided to appeal the recent wild camping court ruling. See news here:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2023/01/dartmoor_latest_national_park_to...

I think this is the best we could hope for at this stage, the question is, how can we help with the appeal?

 Wainers44 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Mark Kemball:

It is good news. Shame the Darwalls get a positive mention.  Maybe they will donate their £300 to the cost of the Appeal?

Hopefully the basis of the Appeal will become clearer and if any support on the position at, or before the 1985 Act is helpful, then DNPA can ask us all for that?

We will all be told that the Court will only consider the legal aspect of this, but we must keep the momentum of general disagreement and dismay at the original decision going as loudly as possible?

 Tony the Blade 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Mark Kemball:

Dartmoor National Park Authority met today (27 January) to agreed key decisions on backpack camping. Following the High Court judgment in the case of Darwall vs Dartmoor National Park Authority*, Members have agreed to:

• Seek permission to appeal the High Court judgment
• Endorse the new permissive system, agreed in principle with the Dartmoor Commons’ Owners Association
• Investigate which areas of common land owned by the Authority could be opened up to backpack camping
• Pause work on the byelaw review so the implications of High Court judgment can be fully considered.

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/darwall-and-darwall-v-dartmoor-national-... 

 Dominic Green 28 Jan 2023

I wonder what they can offer as the basis of their appeal, there must be loads of scope 

The Darwells appear to have mounted their case on the pretence of ignorance as to the implications of owning land within a national park. Imagine that someone who is so sensitive to value might be unaware of the protected value of land within a public, national asset. It’s amazing how they try to offload any additional duties to the nation that might come along with this privileged protection! Hopefully this disingenuousness can be challenged (and dismantled!)

Post edited at 23:54
In reply to Dominic Green:

I haven’t read the judgment, the statute or any relevant precedent, and I know nothing of this judge (not a great sign in itself). Still, you’d feel more confident of a fair outcome in a case involving public rights against landowners if the judge weren’t called Sir Jocelyn Flaux, wouldn’t you? Now if it had been a case turning on whether or not fox hunting was public recreation, maybe the learned judge might have felt differently; who can say?

jcm

2
 Dogwatch 29 Jan 2023
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>  Still, you’d feel more confident of a fair outcome in a case involving public rights against landowners if the judge weren’t called Sir Jocelyn Flaux, wouldn’t you?

Definitely. Sir Julian Flaux would be a much more confidence inspiring name.

 Wainers44 29 Jan 2023
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I haven’t read the judgment, the statute or any relevant precedent, and I know nothing of this judge (not a great sign in itself). Still, you’d feel more confident of a fair outcome in a case involving public rights against landowners if the judge weren’t called Sir Jocelyn Flaux, wouldn’t you? Now if it had been a case turning on whether or not fox hunting was public recreation, maybe the learned judge might have felt differently; who can say?

> jcm

Have a read. It's pretty clear that having absolutely no idea about about relevant factors might hinder correct decision making? Things like motivatons for camping, ditto wild camping, the importance of access for plebs who don't want to pay to shoot stuff, and what the difference between pound notes wealth and the wealth from a community enjoying its surroundings actually is.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's worth a read. Interested to hear the grounds for the appeal because the waffle in the judgement addresses a lot of the obvious avenues. Hope it's successful though.

 Dogwatch 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Wainers44:

> Things like motivatons for camping, ditto wild camping, the importance of access for plebs who don't want to pay to shoot stuff, and what the difference between pound notes wealth and the wealth from a community enjoying its surroundings actually is.

All good political questions. But judicial ones?

 Ridge 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Dogwatch:

> All good political questions. But judicial ones?

Absolutely. The judgement is based on interpretation of a number of statutes, and the legal interpretation of 'recreation'.

 Dogwatch 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Ridge:

> Absolutely. The judgement is based on interpretation of a number of statutes, and the legal interpretation of 'recreation'.

Correct, however I wasn't saying the judgement was outside legal scope,  I was commenting on the list of objectives Wainers44 was setting out. 

 Wainers44 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Dogwatch:

> All good political questions. But judicial ones?

No, legal ones also if you read through the judgement. Especially so as the Judge attempted to look at the intent and the environment surrounding the 1985 Act.

As the language in the Act is neither legalistic,  nor clear, a reasonable grasp of what all these different practices are (were in 1985) is pretty darn essential IMHO.

 Dogwatch 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Wainers44:

> As the language in the Act is neither legalistic,  nor clear, a reasonable grasp of what all these different practices are (were in 1985) is pretty darn essential IMHO.

But in your post to which I was responding, you weren't dealing with those. You were discussing the political/societal reasons why wild camping should be permitted. With which, by the way, I agree. I don't however think those are matters which should be decided by a judge.

I don't think I've  more to say on this, so I'm out.

 Wainers44 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Dogwatch:

Ah well, not sure where you were going with all that Political comment type stuff anyway. End of debate clearly.  You have a good day! 😁

 Howard J 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Mark Kemball:

An appeal isn't an opportunity to have your case re-heard because you don't like the decision. It will look only at whether the judge made an error in interpreting the law or the facts.  Presumably DNP's lawyers are satisfied that there is a reasonable argument for this.

Having read the judgement, it seems clear that prior to the Act it had been accepted that wild camping was not a right and required landowner's permission.  It seems to have been assumed that when the Act permitted "outdoor recreation" this included wild camping. However the judge decided that the Act only confirmed a long-standing customary right of access on foot and horseback, and that if Parliament had intended to create a new right to camp it should have expressly said so. Instead the matter had been barely discussed when the Act was being passed.

However he also said that the only point of wild camping is to facilitate longer hiking trips. This seems to me to misunderstand the nature of wild camping.  For many people the camp is the main point of their visit, and the hike is only to facilitate that. Perhaps this is one of the grounds for appeal.

Whilst we must hope for a successful outcome, this is by no means certain. Whatever the political arguments may be for extending access, the courts will usually restrict themselves to interpreting the law as it is and if changes are needed that is a matter for Parliament.

However I think some of the concerns about the permissive arrangements are overstated.  Permissive access agreements are not uncommon, and (for example) organisations such as the National Trust and Forestry Commission often allow access even where land is not covered by CRoW.  A large part of the National Cycle Network is on permissive rights of way agreed with the landowner, and sometimes paid for.  Of course this is not as good as a legal right, but neither is it necessarily a problem in practice.

OP Mark Kemball 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Mark Kemball:

A good article summarising the current situation on the BMC website:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/dartmoor-national-park-seek-permission-to-appeal-h...

 flaneur 31 Jan 2023
In reply to Howard J:

> However he also said that the only point of wild camping is to facilitate longer hiking trips. This seems to me to misunderstand the nature of wild camping.  For many people the camp is the main point of their visit, and the hike is only to facilitate that. Perhaps this is one of the grounds for appeal.

Wild Camping Uk, Wild Camping UK, and Wild UK Camping Facebook groups have 75K, 60k, and 50k members respectively. Doubtless there is overlap in memberships but these data potentially provide evidence of considerable interest in wild camping independent of hiking or climbing.

 FactorXXX 31 Jan 2023
In reply to flaneur:

> Wild Camping Uk, Wild Camping UK, and Wild UK Camping Facebook groups have 75K, 60k, and 50k members respectively. 

How many members are in the 'Wild Camping UK Popular Peoples Front'? 

 jimtitt 31 Jan 2023
In reply to flaneur:

That is also a dangerous road to go down, there are other groupings who would like to open up areas such as Dartmoor for recreational use. Their idea of recreation, not yours.

 Doug 02 Feb 2023

This article by Dave Morris might be of interest - https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2023/02/02/access-rights-freedoms-and-the-...

I'm not a lawyer but Dave is usually well informed on issues related to outdoor access & conservation.

 jimtitt 02 Feb 2023
In reply to Doug:

You can reply to a thread using the button in the middle.

2
 Lankyman 02 Feb 2023
In reply to FactorXXX:

> How many members are in the 'Wild Camping UK Popular Peoples Front'? 

Yeah. What has the Right to Roam done for us?

 Ridge 02 Feb 2023
In reply to FactorXXX:

> How many members are in the 'Wild Camping UK Popular Peoples Front'? 

It's the Popular Peoples Front of Wild Camping…


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...