National walking charity brings case to the House of Lords
[8 May 2007]
The Ramblers’ Association (RA) will take its first ever case
to the House of Lords on 8 May (today). The RA is bringing the
case because present interpretation of the law makes it unfairly
easy for landowners to stop paths being recognised as public
rights of way.
The law was always understood to be that if the general public
used a path freely for twenty years or more then a public right
of way was created. The exception to this was when a landowner
put up a sign saying ‘no right of way’ or locked gates or
ordered the public off the footpath. Through these actions which
made his intention clear to the public, the route remained
private.
But in 1999 the High Court ruled that a landowner could, even
after 20 years of public use, defeat the claim that a right of
way had come into existence by producing evidence of virtually
any sort of which the public were totally unaware – for example,
letters to his solicitor, directions to staff to keep people off
the path and so on. Indeed, a mere retrospective assertion by a
landowner that he never intended a path to become public now
seems sufficient to defeat a claim.
Janet Davis, Rights of Way Policy Co-ordinator, at the RA, said:
“This interpretation of the law is not in the public’s interest.
It means that members of the public can waste months making
claims for paths – collecting witness statements and so on –
which are then defeated by evidence about which they knew
nothing. Public rights of way are a key feature of both the
rural and urban environment, loved and used by communities for
work, travel and pleasure, and in many places helping to
generate a sizeable income for the rural economy – they deserve
protection.”
She added: “In giving us leave to appeal the House of Lords has
recognised that we have identified an arguable point of law of
public importance.”
The cases in question – Drain and Godmanchester – have already
been before the Court of Appeal because Government Inspectors
had, after public inquiry, refused to acknowledge paths as
public rights of way as a result of the principle of the ruling.
When the judgment was upheld the next stop was the House of
Lords.