Rule of Law and State Power- entick v Carrington

Entick v Carrington is a 1765 case, where under the suspicion of creation of libel, a warrant was issued by the Earl of Halifax; Carrington and three other men barged into Entick's house without his permission. They searched and examined all the rooms, broke open and read all the personal papers Entick kept with himself to find articles that Entick was suspected of having written for weekly seditious papers titled 'The Monitor' or 'The British Freeholder'. Even though no seditious papers were found in Entick's possession, as part of the search Carrington and his companions seized his personal documents and took them away. Entick sued Carrington for trespassing on his property and illegally searching through his private belongings without a lawful warrant. It was held by Lord Camden that the warrant to seize and carry away the party's papers in the case of a seditious libel is illegal and void, and Entick was entitled to damages.

In this case, the major torts being committed are the torts of Trespass to Property where the messengers, under the unlawful warrant, intentionally entered Entick's premises and interfered with his belongings kept in private. They are also held responsible for Trespass to Chattels as they ransacked through Entick's personal papers, reading all of it and further seizing them unlawfully. They had no lawful justification for their arbitrary actions and were held liable for damages in the Court of Law.

The major questions before the bench were; whether the Earl of Halifax had the authority to issue such an arbitrary warrant in the first place, and if he did, then was the warrant a lawful one? The secretary claimed that since the revolution, frequent warrants like the one in question had been issued whose practice has been found by the special verdict, but Lord Camden stated that due to the absence of any evidence of such a practice in the defendants' arguments, they are not entitled to use that finding against them. He further states there is not a single source from any legal text (as of 1765) that supports the secretary of state's assertion that he had this power. Lord Camden further stated that even if we assume that the secretary of the state did have the power to issue such warrants, the law of England does not permit the issuance of warrants of this nature, so even if they had discovered what they were looking for, their actions would not have been justified by the law. Lord Camden was correct in his reasoning denying the legality of such warrants as they are highly arbitrary in nature. The core of the offence is the breach of the victim's inalienable rights to personal security, personal freedom, and private property, not the breaking in and searching through private files.

A distinct division between executive action and judicial function was not entirely established in the 1760s, despite the Glorious Revolution's advancement of the modern notion of separation of powers. The rule that only the common law or legislation might authorise executive action has been established by this decision. Camden rejected "state necessity" and "matters of state" as grounds; therefore, the only legal basis for such authority was the common law of the realm. To quote Camden: "If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law." This statement discussed a general rule about how to prove the content of the law.

The raids on the Monitor and North Briton were perceived as an effort to suppress a different interpretation of the British Empire in addition to attacks on specific writers. General warrants, one of the Bute ministry's primary weapons in those raids, sparked a furious public debate in 1764 that centred on the risks they posed to liberty. The discretion that secretaries of state claimed to have was incredibly extensive and far larger than that of other magistrates. Such a transfer of authority couldn't be based solely on practice; it needed a solid foundation in law otherwise, it was unlawful. This sense of outrage at the abuse of legitimate power gives Entick a fresh and unique perspective. Camden was not just concerned with the protection of property or protection of privacy; Instead, it was regulating governmental power to prevent it from negatively affecting someone's ability to maintain secrecy. No authority has the legal right to enter a man's home and look about for potential witnesses against him, even if having libel in one's possession constituted the offence. This would be worse than the Spanish inquisition since searching into a person's hidden drawers, and boxes for evidence against him is akin to searching through his body for his hidden thoughts.

Entick helps the development of a conceptual framework in British law that may be summed up under the concept of a state. It is very much a case concerning the state. The case advances by exposing the reality of arbitrary power and disguising certain appearances of legality. The case might be seen as an examination of post-feudal administrative structures. Due to the disorganised character of these institutional arrangements, numerous authorities could pretend to have the authority to do specific actions that could harm the subject's liberty and property. Despite having no apparent authority to do so, many authorities could assert that they had the right to take action. Warrants' legal framework lacked any real clarity. This case also doesn't only shed light on the Fourth Amendment, but it actually served as an inspiration for it. The case is widely regarded as having contributed to the definition of the rule of law and has influenced criminal procedure and constitutional thought throughout the common-law world.

References

[1] Entick v Carrington 1765

[2] Arvind, T. T., and Christian R. Burset. "A New Report of Entick v. Carrington (1765)." Ky. LJ 110 (2021): 265.

[3] Baranger, Denis. "'Law, Liberty and Entick V. Carrington'." (2015).

[4] McBride, Nicholas J. Letters to a Law Student 3rd edn: A guide to studying law at university. Pearson UK, 2014.

[5] Entick v. Carrington; 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029 (1765) <http://users.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/entick_v_carrington.html> accessed 4th Nov 2022

[6] Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St. Tr. 1030 <https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_19.htm> accessed 4th Nov 2022