From the point of view of the romantic notion of an Englishman and his free-standing home one can indeed get very excited about the state’s powers of entry. However, the occupant’s interest in privacy and uninterrupted enjoyment of his home must be weighed against the interest of others (usually represented by the state) in safety and security.

An obvious example is the Fire Services Act of 1947. It makes no sense whatsoever to require firefighters to obtain permission to enter the premises if they believe this is necessary to fight a fire. The balance of interest clearly comes down on the side of collective interest in efficient firefighting at the expense of home integrity.

The electricity act is another clear example: if something in a home is endangering the integrity of the electric power grid, it makes no sense for electrical engineers to be dependent on the well wishes of the occupant of that home before they can enter to remedy the problem.

What I consistently miss in Mr. Snook’s work is any sense of balance between the rights of the individual and those of his neighbours. On the contrary, Mr. Snook takes the position of an advocate. He pays no attention to the question of why it might be reasonable to accord state officials powers of entry, but he just lists the powers and presents them as

This is I feel his work can be read to illustrate one side of the story in great detail.

Likewise with the Intelligence Services act and the Prevention of Terrorism act.

Of course it can’t hurt to have a critical review of all grounds for forced entry mentioned, if only because the authority to enter a home in order to administer a breath analyser test seems to be going a bit far. Likewise the Distress for Rent act of 1689 that empowers landlords to enter tenant’s dwellings to seize household goods in lieu of rent might be due for review.

But as with any one-sided argument it would be irresponsible to accept the thrust of Mr. Snooks polemic study as a guideline for action.