Professor Dicey’s opinions were highlighted in theProfessor Dicey’s opinions were highlighted in the

Professor Dicey wrote about his take on the Rule of Law in his book, Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (5)  Dicey’s theory of law formed from three concepts of principles. Dicey believed the rule of law could be summarised by three broad aims. Dicey voiced ‘no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In this sense, the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint’. This suggested that in England, you were not allowed to be taken to prison if there was no proof of a law being broken. If a law is not broken, an individual cannot be made to suffer. This suggested that the legal system was run by society and thus, governments could only do what is consented by the law. Furthermore, ‘every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals’. This could be interpreted that all individuals are equal and not based on classes, therefore even if they break the law all individuals will be punished and sentenced the same way by the same law and the same concept. Therefore, the governments and individuals will all obey the same law and so there will be no special cases. Finally, There is no need for a bill of rights because the general principle of the constitution is the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of the private person. Dicey’s opinions were highlighted in the case of  Entick v Carrigton (6) where the courts insisted that a warrant issued by a home secretary for admission into private property and seizing of allegedly violent material was against the law and would count as trespassing Highlighting how the Rule of law was acting as a shield between individual and excessive governmental power, with full clarity in both application and content and therefore improves the protection of an individual.