Court: Court of King’s Bench
Citation: [1765] EWHC KB J98
Date: 11 November 1762
Judge: Lord Camden, Chief Justice of Common Pleas
Entick v Carrington [1765] is a landmark case in English law that helped to shape the boundaries between state power and individual civil liberties. The case is particularly significant because it established the fundamental legal principle that the state can only act within the bounds of authority granted by law.
The case is famous for Lord Camden’s dictum, “If it is law, it will be found in our books,” which underscores the notion that no one, including government officials, can act outside the law. This case is regarded as one of the cornerstones of English constitutional law and was influential in shaping the development of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Facts of Entick v Carrington
On 11 November 1762, the King’s Chief Messenger, Nathan Carrington, along with three other King’s messengers, James Watson, Thomas Ardran, and Robert Blackmore, entered the home of John Entick, a writer and publisher residing in the parish of St Dunstan, Stepney. The messengers acted under the authority of a warrant issued by Lord Halifax, who was the Secretary of State for the Northern Department. The warrant authorised them to search Entick’s home in search of seditious papers related to a series of pamphlets entitled The Monitor or British Freeholder.
Entick, who had been involved in the publication of these pamphlets, had been accused of seditious writing, a charge that carried significant political implications at the time. The King’s messengers spent over four hours inside Entick’s home, during which they broke locks and doors, and searched through every room. They seized 100 charts and 100 pamphlets, which they removed from the property. The search caused substantial damage, amounting to £2,000 (the equivalent of £377,066 in 2023).
In response to the invasion of his property, Entick sued the messengers for trespassing. The case was brought before the Court of King’s Bench, where the primary issue was whether the defendants, acting under the authority of Lord Halifax’s warrant, could justify their actions and avoid liability for trespassing on Entick’s land.
Legal Issues
The central issue in Entick v Carrington was whether the King’s messengers had the legal authority to enter Entick’s property and conduct a search. The case raised two primary questions:
- Whether the messengers’ actions constituted trespass: The messengers were accused of trespassing, a tort in which an individual unlawfully enters or remains on someone else’s property.
- Whether a warrant from Lord Halifax provided the legal justification for the search and seizure: The messengers argued that they were acting within the scope of their legal authority, having been issued a warrant by Lord Halifax, who was a high-ranking government official. The question, therefore, was whether this warrant gave them the right to search and seize Entick’s property.
Arguments Presented
The King’s messengers, led by Carrington, argued that they had legal authority to conduct the search based on Lord Halifax’s warrant. They contended that such warrants had been issued in the past, particularly during the time of the revolution, and that the search was necessary to locate seditious material that could pose a threat to the state. Their defence rested on the assertion that the warrant gave them the right to enter and search Entick’s property, and thus they could not be liable for trespass.
Entick, on the other hand, argued that the actions of the King’s messengers were unlawful. He maintained that the search had been conducted without proper legal authorisation, as there was no statute or common law precedent that allowed the issue of a warrant to search a private home in such circumstances. Entick’s case was grounded in the assertion that individuals have a fundamental right to protect their property, and that right could only be overridden by law, not by the arbitrary actions of government officials.
Entick v Carrington Judgement
The case was heard in Westminster Hall, with Lord Camden presiding over the proceedings as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Lord Camden ruled in favour of Entick, determining that the actions of the King’s messengers amounted to unlawful trespass. In his judgement, Lord Camden articulated a crucial principle of English law: the government cannot infringe upon the rights of individuals unless there is clear statutory or common law authority permitting such action.
In his most famous passage, Lord Camden stated:
“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc. are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good.”
Lord Camden further explained that every invasion of private property, no matter how minute, is considered trespass unless authorised by law. He emphasised that no man can set foot on another’s land without the owner’s consent, and that any justification for such an invasion must be based on a positive law.
Lord Camden’s judgement was a powerful statement on the limits of executive power. He held that the state could only act in accordance with laws that had been formally established, either through statutes or common law precedents. If no such law could be found, then the individual’s rights to protect their property would prevail. This principle effectively ensured that executive power could not be exercised arbitrarily, and that citizens would be protected against unlawful searches and seizures.
Conclusion
In Entick v Carrington, the Court of King’s Bench affirmed that the protection of an individual’s property rights is a fundamental principle in English law. The case reinforced the idea that executive power is not unlimited, and that the state may only act in accordance with the law.
The ruling in this case had profound implications not only for English constitutional law but also for the development of civil liberties in other common law jurisdictions, most notably the United States. Lord Camden’s judgement in Entick v Carrington remains a seminal point in the evolution of legal protections against governmental overreach and is widely regarded as one of the most important decisions in the history of English law.
