Entick v Carrington: 250 years of the Rule of Law
Entick v Carrington: 250 years of the Rule of Law
Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful.
The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on.
Winner of the American Society for Legal History Sutherland Prize 2016.
978-1849465588
Tomkins, Adam
53202328-eb61-404d-8468-f48c78882cf7
Scott, Paul
d83e2317-35ca-4db4-9788-5752834c3b4b
August 2015
Tomkins, Adam
53202328-eb61-404d-8468-f48c78882cf7
Scott, Paul
d83e2317-35ca-4db4-9788-5752834c3b4b
Tomkins, Adam and Scott, Paul
(eds.)
(2015)
Entick v Carrington: 250 years of the Rule of Law
(Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law),
Oxford, GB.
Hart, 288pp.
Abstract
Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful.
The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on.
Winner of the American Society for Legal History Sutherland Prize 2016.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: August 2015
Organisations:
Southampton Law School
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 380967
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/380967
ISBN: 978-1849465588
PURE UUID: 8dbb2eed-cd4f-454f-ac40-7717f884c29e
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 21 Sep 2015 13:15
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 21:08
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Editor:
Adam Tomkins
Editor:
Paul Scott
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics