Entick v Carrington
(1765) 19 St Tr 102917651 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- Government officers, acting under a general warrant issued by the Secretary of State, entered Entick's premises. They searched for and seized papers, purportedly in connection with alleged seditious activity. The general warrant under which they claimed to act had no genuine, specific legal basis. Entick sued for trespass.
- Issue
- Whether government officials, acting under a claimed but legally unfounded general authority, committed trespass by entering private premises without valid legal justification.
- Held
- Government officials, like any private person, require positive legal authority to justify entering private property. The general warrant relied upon lacked genuine legal foundation. Unauthorised entry, regardless of the officials' claimed governmental purpose, constitutes trespass absent genuine lawful justification. The entry constituted actionable trespass.
- Principle
- Even state officials require positive legal authority to justify entering private property; unauthorised entry, regardless of claimed governmental purpose, constitutes trespass absent genuine lawful justification.
Facts
- Government officers, acting under a general warrant issued by the Secretary of State, entered Entick's premises. They searched for and seized papers, purportedly in connection with alleged seditious activity. The general warrant under which they claimed to act had no genuine, specific legal basis. Entick sued for trespass.
Issue
- Whether government officials, acting under a claimed but legally unfounded general authority, committed trespass by entering private premises without valid legal justification.
Held
- Government officials, like any private person, require positive legal authority to justify entering private property. The general warrant relied upon lacked genuine legal foundation. Unauthorised entry, regardless of the officials' claimed governmental purpose, constitutes trespass absent genuine lawful justification. The entry constituted actionable trespass.
Ratio decidendi
No person, including a government official, may lawfully enter private property without positive legal authority. Mere assertion of official or governmental purpose does not itself constitute this authority; unauthorised entry remains trespass regardless of the actor's claimed status or purpose.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Key line: "In Entick v Carrington (1765), the court held that government officials require positive legal authority to justify entering private property, establishing this foundational limit on executive power."
- This case carries constitutional significance well beyond private trespass law, establishing a foundational principle limiting executive power against unauthorised intrusion on property rights.
Cite this
Citation
Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029Reported: (1765) 19 St Tr 1029. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.