Entick v Carrington

Facts

John Entick wrote for The Monitor, a publication that was critical of the government. In November 1762, the Earl of Halifax, a Secretary of State, issued a warrant authorising Nathan Carrington and other King's messengers to search for Entick and seize him and his books and papers, on suspicion of seditious libel.

The messengers broke into Entick's house, spent about four hours searching it, and took away a large quantity of his papers. Entick sued them for trespass.

Issue

Did the Secretary of State have legal power to issue a warrant authorising the search of a person's home and the seizure of their papers? If not, were the messengers liable in trespass?

Decision

Lord Camden CJ, giving judgment for the Court of Common Pleas, held that the warrant was unlawful and the messengers had committed trespass. Entick was entitled to damages of £300.

Reasoning

Property is protected by law. Lord Camden started from the principle that every invasion of private property, however small, is a trespass. A person who enters another's land must justify it by pointing to some positive law that authorises it.

No legal authority. The defendants could point to no statute that gave a Secretary of State power to issue such a warrant. There was also no common law power: the practice of issuing such warrants, however long-standing, couldn't make them lawful. If the law allowed them, Lord Camden said, it would be found in the books, and it wasn't.

State necessity rejected. The defendants argued that the search was justified by the needs of the state. Lord Camden rejected this. The common law didn't recognise any justification for searching a person's home on the ground of state necessity.

Why it matters

Entick v Carrington is one of the foundations of the rule of law in the UK constitution. It establishes that:

• the executive is subject to the ordinary law, enforced by the ordinary courts;
• officials need positive legal authority to interfere with people's rights or property; and
• the government's view of what is necessary doesn't create legal power.

These ideas were later developed by AV Dicey in his account of the rule of law, and they underpin the principle of legality: courts presume that Parliament doesn't intend to override fundamental rights unless it does so in clear words (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115).

The case is still cited by the Supreme Court. In R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, it was relied on for the courts' role in policing the limits of executive power. Related cases include M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, where a government minister was held to be subject to the court's contempt jurisdiction.

How it comes up in exams

In constitutional law answers on the rule of law, use Entick v Carrington as the classic authority for:

1. the requirement that the state must have legal authority for its actions;
2. the equal subjection of officials to the ordinary law; and
3. the courts' role in holding the executive to account.

On SQE1, rule of law questions often ask you to identify which principle a scenario illustrates, so link the case to the principle, not just the facts.

Frequently asked questions