Entick v Carrington
The state may not interfere with a person's property without clear legal authority: the foundation of the rule of law in English law.
Facts
John Entick was a writer suspected of producing seditious publications criticising the government. The Secretary of State, Lord Halifax, issued a general warrant authorising the King's messengers, including Nathan Carrington, to search for Entick and seize his papers. The messengers broke into Entick's house, searched it for four hours and took away his books and papers. Entick sued them for trespass. They argued that the warrant was lawful because such warrants had been issued and executed for many years and were necessary for the security of the state.
Legal principle
The court held that the warrant was unlawful and the messengers were liable for trespass. Lord Camden CJ said that the great end for which men entered into society was to secure their property, and that every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. If the defendants claimed a right to enter, they had to show some positive law authorising them to do so. No statute or rule of the common law authorised the issue of such general warrants, and the argument of state necessity was rejected: the common law does not understand that kind of reasoning. The case established that public officials, like private individuals, must have legal authority for their actions.
Related cases on rule of law
- Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 AC 531
- Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75
- Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206
- M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377
- Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch 344
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, [2015] AC 1787
- R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2020] AC 869
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
