Opinion

Smethurst decision a pyrrhic victory for journalistic freedom

By Kieran Pender
Updated April 20 2020 - 12:18am, first published April 15 2020 - 5:19pm
The High Court has ruled a search warrant authorising AFP officers to raid a journalist's home was invalid. Picture: Karleen Minney
The High Court has ruled a search warrant authorising AFP officers to raid a journalist's home was invalid. Picture: Karleen Minney

In 1762, messengers of King George III broke into the London home of journalist John Entick in search of "seditious papers" - writings critical of the monarchy. Outraged, Entick sued the messengers for trespass. In what would become a landmark civil liberty case, Chief Justice Lord Camden rejected the messengers' defence that their conduct was authorised by the king. "If it is law, it will be found in our books," he held. "If it is not to be found there, it is not law." In other words: the government cannot break down the doors of its citizens without precise legal authorisation.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

$0/

(min cost $0)

or signup to continue reading

See subscription options

Get the latest Canberra news in your inbox

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.