Entick V Carrington 1765

 Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030. This case showed that the police must show lawful authority (a power conferred on them by law) to enter a person’s private property and seize personal property. Here, police officers went into Entick’s property and seized personal papers without having a warrant, leading to his arrest and loss of his personal liberty. A fundamental value under the rule of law is that a person cannot lose their personal liberty unless it can be proved that they broke the law.
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs . In this case, the House of Lords ruled that the British government's decision to forcibly remove the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands in order to make way for a US military base was unlawful, as it violated their right to return to their homeland under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Re M (1993) In 1991, M, a citizen of Zaire, applied for asylum in the UK. His application was refused, and he was detained pending deportation. M challenged the decision to detain him, and the High Court granted him an injunction requiring the Home Secretary to bring him back to the UK. However, the Home Secretary refused to comply with the order, arguing that he was not bound by it. The House of Lords held that the Home Secretary had been in contempt of court and that ministers are subject to the same legal obligations as any other citizen.


The case of Malone v. UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14 was a landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that established the right to respect for private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Case Facts
In 1977, James Malone, an antique dealer, was suspected of handling stolen goods. The police, acting on a warrant from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, intercepted his telephone calls without his knowledge or consent. The evidence obtained from these interceptions was used to convict Malone of two counts of dishonest handling of stolen goods.
Malone appealed his conviction to the House of Lords, arguing that the interception of his telephone calls had violated his right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. The House of Lords rejected his appeal, holding that the interception of his telephone calls was justified in the circumstances of the case.
Malone then took his case to the ECHR.
ECHR Ruling
The ECHR held that the interception of Malone's telephone calls had violated his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. The court found that the interception of telephone calls was a particularly serious interference with privacy, as it allowed the government to monitor the most private conversations of its citizens. The court also found that the interception of Malone's telephone calls had not been justified, as it had not been carried out in accordance with the law and had not been necessary to protect national security or prevent crime.

Waddington v Miah Between 1970 and 1972, Miah, an alien who did not possess the right of entry into the United Kingdom, entered the country illegally and used a false passport. He was subsequently charged with offenses under the Immigration Act 1971, which had come into force in 1973. The House of Lords agreed with Miah and held that the Immigration Act 1971 should not be applied retrospectively to the offenses he had committed before the Act came into force.
There are a few reasons why Parliament might choose to pass a law with retrospective effect. One reason is to address a perceived injustice. For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 was passed to allow the prosecution of people who had committed war crimes during World War II. This law was passed retrospectively because it was felt that it was important to bring these people to justice, even though the crimes had been committed many years ago.

Another reason why Parliament might choose to pass a law with retrospective effect is to correct a mistake that has been made in the past. For example, the War Damage Act 1965 was passed to compensate people who had suffered property damage as a result of the Second World War. This law was passed retrospectively because it was felt that it was unfair to deny compensation to these people simply because they had suffered their losses in the past.

A v Secretary of State (2004). that held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh prison without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The government argued that the detainees were a threat to national security and that their detention was necessary to protect the public. However, the detainees challenged their detention on the grounds that it violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte 20 A Rossminster
the Inland Revenue Commissioners, the body responsible for collecting taxes in the United Kingdom, obtained search warrants under section 20C of the Taxes Management Act 1970 to search the premises of a number of individuals and businesses suspected of tax fraud.
Parliament had given a general power to tax inspectors to enter and search private premises