Rule of Law

Entick v. Carrington [1765]

a case that talks about the rule of law

Entick v. Carrington (1765) cements the Rule of Law by establishing that the government has no inherent power and is subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. The court ruled that the state cannot infringe upon individual liberties or private property without pointing to explicit statutory or common law authority, effectively declaring that the executive branch is bound by the law, not above it.

a case that talks about the rule of law

Entick v. Carrington (1765) cements the Rule of Law by establishing that the government has no inherent power and is subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. The court ruled that the state cannot infringe upon individual liberties or private property without pointing to explicit statutory or common law authority, effectively declaring that the executive branch is bound by the law, not above it.

Entick v. Carrington [1765]

Entick v Carrington (1765)

Keyword: Principle of legality
Issue: Did the Secretary of State have the legal power to issue a warrant to search Entick’s home?
Context: The King’s messengers entered Entick’s home with a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, the Earl of Halifax, and seized a large quantity of his papers. They were looking for seditious material.
Held: The warrant was illegal and void, because no law gave the Secretary of State that power. The executive must point to a legal power. Camden CJ: “If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law.”

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998]

Keyword: Presumption against breaching the rule of law
Issue: Could the Home Secretary increase a prisoner’s minimum term after it had been set?
Context: Pierson was convicted of murdering his parents. The Lord Chief Justice recommended 15 years, but the Home Secretary set 20 years. The minimum term (or “tariff”) is the least time a prisoner must serve before the Parole Board reviews their case. It is not the total time in prison. At the time, the Home Secretary set it, not the judge.
Held: By a majority, the increase in Pierson’s case was unlawful. The judges’ reasoning was split, so the case does not create a general rule against increases. Lord Steyn: Parliament is presumed not to legislate against the rule of law unless it clearly says so. This means that when an Act is vague, courts read it in a way that respects the rule of law. Parliament can still override this, but only with clear words.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000]

Keyword: Fundamental rights need clear words
Issue: Could the Home Secretary stop prisoners giving journalists interviews that could be published?
Context: Two prisoners, Simms and O’Brien, wanted to meet journalists to help challenge their convictions. Interviews were only allowed if journalists promised in writing not to publish any of it.
Held: The ban was unlawful. General or ambiguous words in a statute cannot override fundamental rights. Lord Hoffmann: Parliament must “squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost.”

Jackson v Attorney General [2005]

Keyword: Validity of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
Issue: Was the Hunting Act 2004 a valid Act of Parliament?
Context: The Hunting Act was passed using the Parliament Act 1949, which had itself been passed using the Parliament Act 1911. Fox-hunting supporters argued the 1949 Act was invalid, so the Hunting Act was too.
Held: The 1949 Act was validly passed, so the Hunting Act was valid. Obiter (not binding): Lord Hope said the rule of law enforced by the courts is “the ultimate controlling factor” of the constitution (paragraph 107).

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51

Case

Keyword

Issue

context

held

1-       R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51

Access to justice

Was the Lord Chancellor’s Fees Order lawful, given that the fees were effectively stopping people from bringing employment claims?

The Lord Chancellor introduced fees of up to £1,200 in 2013. Claims dropped by around 70%. UNISON challenged them.

The fees were unlawful and quashed. Access to the courts is a constitutional right that is part of the rule of law, and the fees blocked it in practice.