Case Notes
CASE NOTES 2
The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030 • Two of the King’s messengers acting under a general warrant issued by the Secretary of State broke into the Claimant’s house and seized his papers. • The Claimant sued for trespass. • The Secretary of State claimed that the powers to issue such warrants were essential to government, ‘the only means of quieting clamours and sedition’. • The Court held that as these warrants were not authorised by statute or judicial precedence they were illegal. The case demonstrates the right of individuals to be free from unlawful interference from the executive and that the executive cannot act without authority – exclusion of arbitrary power.
Waddington v Miah [1974] 1 WLR 683 (HL) • In interpreting the Immigration Act 1971 the Court stated that the Act did not make conduct which was not a crime when it was committed punishable by criminal sanctions at a later date i.e. a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively (unless unavoidable). • Lord Reid ‘…it is hardly credible that any government department would promote or that Parliament would pass retrospective criminal legislation. The case demonstrates that the courts are not prepared to punish someone unless the law has been breached and will construe legislation as not imposing retrospective criminal offences.
Burmah Oil Co. v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 (HL) • During the Japanese invasion of Burma the British Army Commander ordered the destruction of oil installations around Rangoon in order to prevent them falling into enemy hands. The actions were carried out under prerogative powers. There was no argument that the actions were not lawful. The owners of the oil installations sought compensation after the war. • The Court held that there was a legal right to some compensation where the destruction of property was part of a deliberate long-term
The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030 • Two of the King’s messengers acting under a general warrant issued by the Secretary of State broke into the Claimant’s house and seized his papers. • The Claimant sued for trespass. • The Secretary of State claimed that the powers to issue such warrants were essential to government, ‘the only means of quieting clamours and sedition’. • The Court held that as these warrants were not authorised by statute or judicial precedence they were illegal. The case demonstrates the right of individuals to be free from unlawful interference from the executive and that the executive cannot act without authority – exclusion of arbitrary power.
Waddington v Miah [1974] 1 WLR 683 (HL) • In interpreting the Immigration Act 1971 the Court stated that the Act did not make conduct which was not a crime when it was committed punishable by criminal sanctions at a later date i.e. a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively (unless unavoidable). • Lord Reid ‘…it is hardly credible that any government department would promote or that Parliament would pass retrospective criminal legislation. The case demonstrates that the courts are not prepared to punish someone unless the law has been breached and will construe legislation as not imposing retrospective criminal offences.
Burmah Oil Co. v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 (HL) • During the Japanese invasion of Burma the British Army Commander ordered the destruction of oil installations around Rangoon in order to prevent them falling into enemy hands. The actions were carried out under prerogative powers. There was no argument that the actions were not lawful. The owners of the oil installations sought compensation after the war. • The Court held that there was a legal right to some compensation where the destruction of property was part of a deliberate long-term