Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029

Facts

  • In 1762, Nathan Carrington, acting as a chief messenger and accompanied by three others, entered the home of John Entick.
  • The entry and search were carried out under a warrant issued by the Earl of Halifax, then Secretary of State.
  • The warrant authorized the search for seditious materials allegedly authored by Entick, believed to be hostile to the King's government.
  • During the search, significant damage was inflicted on Entick’s property and a large quantity of documents was seized.
  • Entick sued Carrington for trespass, contesting the legality of the search and seizure.
  • The key issue was whether a warrant from a Secretary of State could legally justify what would otherwise amount to trespass.

Issues

  1. Whether the Secretary of State had lawful authority to issue a warrant permitting entry, search, and seizure of private property.
  2. Whether the actions taken under executive order could be justified without explicit statutory or common law sanction.
  3. Whether absence of legal precedent for challenging such warrants effectively established their lawfulness.

Decision

  • The court, presided over by Lord Camden, ruled in favour of Entick.
  • It was held that there was no statutory or common law authority empowering the Secretary of State to issue warrants for search and seizure as executed.
  • The lack of previous legal challenges to similar warrants did not legitimize their use.
  • The court declared the actions of Carrington and his associates unlawful as trespass.

Legal Principles

  • Executive powers must be explicitly authorized by statute or established common law; absent such authority, actions are unlawful.
  • The judiciary has the power to review and limit executive action to ensure compliance with the law.
  • The principle of legality serves to protect individuals from arbitrary state intrusion.
  • The case underlines the separation of powers by affirming judicial oversight of executive conduct.
  • State action must conform strictly to the law; absence of express legal justification renders executive acts void.

Conclusion

Entick v Carrington established that executive actions require express legal authority and affirmed the judiciary's role in reviewing state power. The judgment anchors the principle of legality, confirming that government officials may not infringe private rights without lawful justification, a doctrine that remains central to constitutional law and the protection of civil liberties.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal