Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 (KB)

Facts

• In 1762, Nathan Carrington, a chief messenger, and three others entered the home of John Entick under the purported authority of a warrant issued by the Earl of Halifax, Secretary of State.
• The warrant directed the search for and seizure of alleged seditious papers authored by Entick.
• During the search, Carrington and his associates caused property damage and removed charts and pamphlets from Entick’s home.
• Entick brought a claim for trespass against Carrington, challenging the lawfulness of the entry and seizure.
• The court was required to determine whether the Secretary of State’s warrant provided adequate legal justification for the actions taken.

Issues

1. Whether the Secretary of State’s warrant was sufficient legal authority for Carrington and others to enter Entick’s property and seize materials.
2. Whether the executive could exercise powers that were not explicitly grounded in statute, precedent, or established legal principles.
3. Whether actions infringing individual property rights could be justified solely on the basis of government practice or unchallenged custom.

Decision

• The King’s Bench ruled in favour of Entick, holding that Carrington and his associates had committed trespass.
• The court found there was no statutory or common law authority to justify the warrant or the government’s actions.
• Lord Camden asserted that the lawfulness of executive action must be found in established legal sources; absent such authority, the action was not lawful.
• The court rejected arguments that executive practice or lack of past legal challenge constituted lawful authority.

Legal Principles

• The state may only act within the bounds of explicit legal authorization derived from statute or common law.
• Executive power is limited and must be justified with reference to legal rules; government officials cannot exercise authority without a clear legal basis.
• Individual liberty is protected by restricting state actions to what is specifically permitted by law, while individuals may do anything not expressly forbidden.
• The protection of private property is a core element, with any entry or seizure by state agents requiring explicit legal justification.
• The judiciary has a critical role in reviewing and restraining executive actions to prevent abuse of power.

Conclusion

Entick v Carrington is a foundational case affirming that all government power must be authorized by law, decisively limiting executive authority and safeguarding individual rights. Its enduring influence forms a central principle of constitutional law and the doctrine of judicial review.