However, the land you slept on belongs to someone and that someone didn’t give you permission to be on their land … you are trespassing, you’re a bad person.

I would argue you are only a "bad person" as a LNT traveller if you refuse to move on if asked by the landowner or his appointed representative. As I misunderstand it trespass is a civil offence and any civil action needs to show loss which as a LNT traveller there isn't any. Refusing to move on starts to move into criminal behaviour. The exception is where it's an urban common (I'm "resting" not camping which is explicitly mentioned) and other areas with byelaws

One aspect that should be highlighted is that there used to be places to camp on many of the pack horse trails etc, it's a something if a lost part of our history

riderdown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:01 pm

However, the land you slept on belongs to someone and that someone didn’t give you permission to be on their land … you are trespassing, you’re a bad person.

I would argue you are only a "bad person" as a LNT traveller if you refuse to move on if asked by the landowner or his appointed representative. As I misunderstand it trespass is a civil offence and any civil action needs to show loss which as a LNT traveller there isn't any. Refusing to move on starts to move into criminal behaviour. The exception is where it's an urban common (I'm "resting" not camping which is explicitly mentioned) and other areas with byelaws

One aspect that should be highlighted is that there used to be places to camp on many of the pack horse trails etc, it's a something if a lost part of our history

Some interesting points there Riderdown, and particularly regards the right to stop and rest overnight being part of the right of highway.

As already mentioned, wild camping may, in certain circumstances, constitute a trespass against the landowner, it is not, in general, illegal. There has, in many parts of the country, been a longstanding historical tolerance of responsible wild-camping, particularly among those travelling the highways and byways of remote rural areas, such as cattle drovers and pilgrims, dating all the way back to time immemorial. Indeed until recently it would have been unquestionable that travellers had a right to rest overnight by the side of the highway (I suspect a few of us are still just about old enough to remember Romany caravans stopping off for a night or two in rural areas) and while legislation has for some time prohibited this right for vehicles and trailers there in no clear legislation prohibiting erection of a tent to stop and rest overnight within the bounds of a highway (in fact I had some interesting discussions with local authorities about this regards the Ridgeway section of KAW) so in effect it has long been tolerated as custom and practice for hikers and cyclists.

As the legal maxim goes: "England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden."

On the wider points, see blog piece here https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/no-more- ... onal-parks

We are currently awaiting a final decision from Dartmoor NPA on whether to proceed with and apply for DEFRA confirmation of their proposed (updated) bye-laws, there are a number of serious flaws in these, and CUK are in close discussion with people like Open Spaces Society about the potential for a legal challenge. Which would be a pretty big undertaking, but potentially a seminal moment in trying to secure better rights for mountain bike access nationwide.

^ "travelling" being the key word here I think. We have no intention to "reside", we're on the way somewhere and need to stop and rest for whatever reason. If asked, I'll sometimes say "I'm sorry but I am on my way to X, have got overtired and it is not now safe for me to continue. I have had to put this temporary shelter up because the weather is a threat to my wellbeing and potentially my life". Plainly in my case "X" isn't any specific place because I am a fully paid up two-wheeled tramp, with no idea where I am or where I'm going half the the time, but that's not the point.

So I also contacted Right To Roam (I'm a "member" there, and have all of Guy's books), and the very nice Maria replied. I said we would love to hear from her on Here. Hello Maria if you're on board, <waves>.

I'm sure she won't mind me posting her reply to me, as below. The PDF link to the Dartmoor Commons Act is interesting. Section 10(1) says:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and compliance with all Rules, regulations or byelaws relating to the Commons and for the time being in force, teh public shall have a right of access to the Commons on foot and on horse-back for the purposes of open-air recreation; and a person who enters onto the Commons for that purpose without breaking or damaging any wall, hedge, gate or other thing, or who is on the Commons for that purpose having so entered, shall not be treated as a trespasser on the Commons or incur any other liability by reason only of so entering or being on the Commons".

Sounds pretty clear to me. Well apart from bicycles not being specified but we're a sort of horse aren't we . The key seems to be "open-air recreation". "Recreation" is defined as "activity done for enjoyment when one is not working" (an interesting one, but let's not overanalyse it). If one became "unable to keep moving" as part of that recreation (because of "tiredness" or "bad weather", as in my previous post) and needed to stop and shelter from the elements then surely that is still part of that recreation.


Maria's email to me:

"Thanks so much for your message and getting in touch. Yes I totally see what you mean, also loving the photo of 'camping or just having a rest' on your forum [from Stu's blog]!

So as far as we know, "The High Court declared on 13 January 2023 that Section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 does not confer on the public any right to pitch tents or otherwise make camp overnight on the Dartmoor Commons. Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) is in discussion with Dartmoor Common landowners on how responsible wild camping might be permitted in the future."

This can be found on the Dartmoor National Park website https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/about-us/ab ... amping-mapwhere they now list the available campsites on Dartmoor.

They're referring to this section https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/198 ... 037_en.pdf on page 14 of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. I wonder what you think?

As wild campers are always leaving no trace or a positive trace, it would be hard to find a wild camper to prosecute I imagine - especially if they are gone by dawn.

However, the issue remains that this is now a legal offense if you are caught!

I wonder what happens if you walked all night and took a nap for an hour or so, just in your clothes against an oak tree, and then carried on. I wonder if this would count? There may be many nuances to the situation as it unfolds".

For something, anything, to be a legal offence, then surely there has to be a legal definition of what that that thing is whether its arson, murder or in this case camping?

Depends if they say what you can do and the thing you are doing is not on the list then they dont need to define it, for example.
If you can walk then they dont need to define what a bicycle in the law, they just have to know its not walking.

The camping one is interesting as to exactly when it stops being recreation - I am here for the sole purpose of practicing pitching tarps in the outdoors , is this recreation or camping ?- thats probably why we need a definition of camping here

I'm confused now ... I keep seeing the word 'illegal' in relation to Dartmoor, so does that mean that Dartmoor has now pulled rank over the rest or England / Wales, where wildcamping isn't illegal as it isn't a criminal offence or are some folk simply not making a distinction between criminal / civil?

Just read this although it doesn't really change the current situation.

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2023/ ... iMbm8CfOZ0#

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:18 pm does that mean that Dartmoor has now pulled rank over the rest or England / Wales,

Good point

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:21 pm Just read this although it doesn't really change the current situation.

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2023/ ... iMbm8CfOZ0#

Interestin'.

"In certain areas". Hmm.

"Interactive map". Do you think my early 20thC paper map counts as interactive? Walking around "interacting" with an electronic map is not my bag ta.

As pointed out earlier, Mr Hedgie may well end up wishing he'd never prodded this hornets nest and will end up worse off than if he'd not interfered.

MP's wading in now.. questions in Parliament.. blah... time to get the pitchforks out

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devo ... e-target

I keep seeing the word 'illegal' in relation to Dartmoor, so does that mean that Dartmoor has now pulled rank over the rest or England / Wales, where wildcamping isn't illegal as it isn't a criminal offence or are some folk simply not making a distinction between criminal / civil?

that is not how the distinction between illegal and unlawful operates
Illegal - law stops you doing it - you cannot commit murder as it says so
Unlawful - law does not give you legal power to
Damaging a building is civil law but its still illegal as the law says you cannot do it
Contract law is also civil but it does not mean its not criminal/illegal to hire a hit man

I think wild camping is illegal as the law says you cannot do it without the landowners permission but its civil as its trespass
IANAL

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:18 pm I'm confused now ... I keep seeing the word 'illegal' in relation to Dartmoor, so does that mean that Dartmoor has now pulled rank over the rest or England / Wales, where wildcamping isn't illegal as it isn't a criminal offence or are some folk simply not making a distinction between criminal / civil?

The general rule (in England and Wales) is that wild camping without permission is not a public right, and therefore would constitute a trespass against the landowner (assuming he didn’t want you there) meaning he had a right to move you on and eject you from the land (if on CROW access land, you could be barred from exercising your right of access for 72 hours). The recent judgement means that this is now (once again) the case on the Dartmoor commons.

There may be additional rules that escalate that into a criminal offence, such as breach of S193 Law of Property Act or local authority/National Park Authority byelaws, punishable by fine. Examples of this are MOD land, National Trust Land and access land in the Peak District and Lake District National Parks

This is also the general rule for cycling on footpaths or other land (ie. Anywhere other than Bridleway or Restricted Byway/BOAT), with the same caution regards byelaws (indeed, the same sets of byelaws mentioned above tend to cover both camping and cycling)

There’s an obvious question regards Dartmoor why wild camping (not mentioned at all in the dartmoor commons ac 1985t) should be treated any differently from cycling (also not mentioned in the 1985 act)

For something, anything, to be a legal offence, then surely there has to be a legal definition of what that that thing is whether its arson, murder or in this case camping?

I'm wary of commenting after my last comment ion this thread shows my lack of legal knowledge, not that I'd claim any! But anyway.. Intent is a big part of criminal law so perhaps that comes into it. I can't see how you'd deny 'intent' if you were carrying camping gear but had only stopped for a few hours. But if you kipped under a tree during a walk without any camping kit with you, or had such minimal gear that it wouldn't be seen as intended camping, perhaps it'd be ok.

I also wonder if this is an area that would have a jury trial?

Looks like the other land owners aren't such ***** (insert word of choice here) and it's going to be allowed again

https://mailchi.mp/dartmoor.gov.uk/agre ... ?e=[UNIQID]

Nice to see that they draw this distinction:

All present at the meeting were clear that there is no place for illegal fly camping on Dartmoor. ‘Fly camping’, which often involves large groups with barbecues or open fires, should not be confused with true wild camping and will continue to be prohibited.

whitestone wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 3:09 pm Nice to see that they draw this distinction:

All present at the meeting were clear that there is no place for illegal fly camping on Dartmoor. ‘Fly camping’, which often involves large groups with barbecues or open fires, should not be confused with true wild camping and will continue to be prohibited.

Think you're missing a crucial there Bob

I suspect as with anything there's a bit more to all this than we can see or know. No doubt more of it will emerge over time and developments.

Your missing crucial is, er, missing there, Monkey .

Hmm, since it's a direct copy and paste of the final paragraph in the linked newspiece I'm not sure I've the right to prepend/insert/append either "there" or "crucial".

Edit: a bit more on the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64333066

Ah sorry, I see, "missing a 'crucial'" not missing a crucial 'something' .

sean_iow wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 3:06 pm Looks like the other land owners aren't such ***** (insert word of choice here) and it's going to be allowed again

https://mailchi.mp/dartmoor.gov.uk/agre ... ?e=[UNIQID]

Reporting in the Guardian indicates it'll be a right that the NP wil buy on "wild campers" behalf and there are grumblings it will only be in restricted areas. All sounds a bit rubbish and might I suggesting a large degree of turd-polishing is going on?

Yup, a national park wide right has been replaced with a permissive use at the whim of landowners in selected areas. Oh, and landowners get some money out of the NPA - even if it's a token amount, it's bullsh1t. The fact that the situation has been turned like this, is shameful. Fair enough on the NPA for agreeing an interim solution quickly, but the essence of the injustice remains.

Worth the watch

It's allowed now.

https://youtu.be/GnFOPuxOkVw

Seems like an attempt by the landowners to douse the flames that the court case ignited, in the hope of nipping a wider access movement in the bud, while maintaining the power. A permissive access agreement is a poor substitute for and a distraction from fair access rights in law. The fact they're getting a payoff from the NPA (who I assume are entirely funded by the public purse?) to boot is just a kick in the teeth.