This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2015/mar/26/prince-charles-memos-supreme-court-ruling-live
The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Prince Charles memos: supreme court rules in favour of the Guardian - live | Prince Charles memos: supreme court rules in favour of the Guardian - live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 10.50am GMT10:50 | |
| Anti-monarchy campaigners said the release of Charles’ letters would boost their cause, writes Robert Booth. | |
| “It will change the public perception of the monarchy as apolitical and harmless, to being a serious political force,” said Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state. | |
| “The law now needs to change so future requests [to see royal correspondence with ministers] should be successful. The court has defended democratic principles over the interests of the royal family and that needs to be enshrined in law. David Cameron’s response is worrying because he says he wants to tighten up the veto.” | |
| 10.48am GMT10:48 | |
| Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg says the letter should remain private writes Frances Perraudin. | |
| Speaking just as the judgement was being delivered on the last of his weekly phone-in shows for LBC, Clegg said he didn’t think it was for him, as a member of this government, to try and re-open letters sent to other governments. | |
| He said: “I think there’s a perfectly legitimate role to say at a certain point that correspondence like that, which was intended to be private, should remain private.” | |
| 10.45am GMT10:45 | |
| Robert Booth also has a little more reaction from Clarence House. | |
| “This is a matter for the government,” said a Clarence House spokesperson. “Clarence House is disappointed that the principle of privacy has not been upheld.” | |
| A royal aide said that the palace was relatively “relaxed” about the imminent publication of the letters themselves and noted that the judgment was not based on the content of the letters but on the principle of the separation of powers. Where the palace is understood to be more concerned is that the broader principle of privacy in communications between the Prince of Wales and ministers has not been upheld. | |
| 10.44am GMT10:44 | |
| Paul Flynn MP, a Labour member of the commons political and constitutional reform committee, said the ruling could increase public demand for the crown to be passed straight to Prince William when the Queen dies, writes Robert Booth. | |
| “This opens up a much bigger issue,” he said. “If there are serious questions about the suitability of Prince Charles as a monarch there could be a question in the public mind about whether to skip a generation. The Attorney General already said the main justification for keeping the letters secret was they would hinder Charles ability to be a successful monarch.” | |
| He added: “This has been a waste of a considerable sum of taxpayers’ money trying to prevent as knowing the truth about someone who will become our king. It is an example of the abject subservience to royalty.” | |
| Updated at 10.45am GMT | |
| 10.41am GMT10:41 | |
| The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has expressed his delight. | |
| We are delighted the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly backed the brilliant 10-year campaign by Guardian reporter Rob Evans to shine daylight on the letters Princes Charles has been writing to ministers. The government wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to cover up these letters, admitting their publication would ‘seriously damage’ perceptions of the Prince’s political neutrality. Now they must publish them so that the public can make their own judgment. | |
| This is a good day for transparency in government and shows how essential it is to have a fully independent judiciary and free press. | |
| Updated at 10.50am GMT | |
| 10.36am GMT10:36 | |
| Government says it will make law clearer | |
| Downing Street has expressed its disappointment and suggested it will try to change the law. | |
| A statement issued by David Cameron said: | |
| This is a disappointing judgment and we will now consider how to release these letters. This is about the principle that senior members of the Royal Family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough. | |
| Our FOI laws specifically include the option of a governmental veto, which we exercised in this case for a reason. If the legislation does not make Parliament’s intentions for the veto clear enough, then we will need to make it clearer.” | |
| Updated at 10.50am GMT | |
| 10.34am GMT10:34 | |
| Andrew Neilson, a former government press officer now at the Howard League for Penal Reform, says he also seen the memos and they are in the public interest. | |
| As someone who has seen a couple of the Prince Charles letters, it will certainly be of high public interest to have them out in the open. | |
| 10.31am GMT10:31 | |
| The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, highlights a key message to the government in the judgment. | |
| Supreme Court to Downing Street pic.twitter.com/V3qRIgdn0V | |
| 10.28am GMT10:28 | |
| Earlier we wrongly described a summary of the judgment as the full text. | |
| Rosemary Sutcliff points out the the full text - all 64 pages of it - is available here. | |
| 10.24am GMT10:24 | 10.24am GMT10:24 |
| Former Labour minister Denis MacShane urges us to calm down. | Former Labour minister Denis MacShane urges us to calm down. |
| Having seen P Charles letters when a minister I fear journos and citizens are going to be disappointed as so often w HRH | Having seen P Charles letters when a minister I fear journos and citizens are going to be disappointed as so often w HRH |
| 10.22am GMT10:22 | 10.22am GMT10:22 |
| Mark Elliot, reader in public law at Cambridge University, highlights some key passages from the ruling. | Mark Elliot, reader in public law at Cambridge University, highlights some key passages from the ruling. |
| Lord Neuberger: Executive overruling of judiciary highly constitutionally suspect #Evans pic.twitter.com/pl8TapBk1R | Lord Neuberger: Executive overruling of judiciary highly constitutionally suspect #Evans pic.twitter.com/pl8TapBk1R |
| Interesting that Lord Neuberger invokes Anisminic in his judgment #Evans pic.twitter.com/kAUUc3Lr8X | Interesting that Lord Neuberger invokes Anisminic in his judgment #Evans pic.twitter.com/kAUUc3Lr8X |
| 10.18am GMT10:18 | 10.18am GMT10:18 |
| The reaction from Clarence House sticks in the craw of republicans. | The reaction from Clarence House sticks in the craw of republicans. |
| .@ClarenceHouse said it was “disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld”. No mention of the principle of democracy. | .@ClarenceHouse said it was “disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld”. No mention of the principle of democracy. |
| 10.16am GMT10:16 | 10.16am GMT10:16 |
| The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire wonders whether the government could bring itself to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. | The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire wonders whether the government could bring itself to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. |
| Oh the irony if this Govt went to a European Court of Human Rights it detests to keep secret the mad memos of Prince Charles | Oh the irony if this Govt went to a European Court of Human Rights it detests to keep secret the mad memos of Prince Charles |
| 10.12am GMT10:12 | 10.12am GMT10:12 |
| More reaction. The barrister Dinah Rose said it was a “great constitutional judgment”. | More reaction. The barrister Dinah Rose said it was a “great constitutional judgment”. |
| Prince Charles: Neuberger great constitutional judgment. Restatement of principle of legality. Mance v pointed dissection of the facts. | Prince Charles: Neuberger great constitutional judgment. Restatement of principle of legality. Mance v pointed dissection of the facts. |
| Mark Ferguson, editor of LabourList also welcomed the ruling. | Mark Ferguson, editor of LabourList also welcomed the ruling. |
| Now we get to see the full detail of what Prince Charles has written to the government. Good. The Royals can’t be immune from transparency | Now we get to see the full detail of what Prince Charles has written to the government. Good. The Royals can’t be immune from transparency |
| 10.06am GMT10:06 | 10.06am GMT10:06 |
| Here’s the full text of a summary of the judgment. | |
| The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) enables members of the public to see documents held by many public bodies, subject to certain exemptions; the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR 2004”) enables members of the public to see documents containing “environmental information”, again subject to certain exemptions. In April 2005, Mr Evans, a journalist who works for the Guardian newspaper, requested disclosure of communications passing between various government departments and HRH the Prince of Wales (“the letters”). The requests were made under both FOIA 2000 and EIR 2004. The Departments refused to disclose the letters on the ground that they considered the letters were exempt. Mr Evans complained to the Information Commissioner, who upheld the Departments’ refusal. Mr Evans then appealed to the Information Tribunal, and the matter was transferred to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal conducted a full hearing with six days of evidence and argument. In its determination issued 18 September 2012, the Upper Tribunal decided that many of the letters (referred to as “advocacy correspondence”) should be disclosed. The Departments did not appeal this decision, but on 16 October 2012 the Attorney General issued a certificate under section 53(2) FOIA 2000 and regulation 18(6) EIR 2004 stating that he had, on “reasonable grounds”, formed the opinion that the Departments had been entitled to refuse disclosure of the letters, and set out his reasoning. If this Certificate is valid, its effect would be to override a decision of the Upper Tribunal, a judicial body which has the same status as the High Court. | The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”) enables members of the public to see documents held by many public bodies, subject to certain exemptions; the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR 2004”) enables members of the public to see documents containing “environmental information”, again subject to certain exemptions. In April 2005, Mr Evans, a journalist who works for the Guardian newspaper, requested disclosure of communications passing between various government departments and HRH the Prince of Wales (“the letters”). The requests were made under both FOIA 2000 and EIR 2004. The Departments refused to disclose the letters on the ground that they considered the letters were exempt. Mr Evans complained to the Information Commissioner, who upheld the Departments’ refusal. Mr Evans then appealed to the Information Tribunal, and the matter was transferred to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal conducted a full hearing with six days of evidence and argument. In its determination issued 18 September 2012, the Upper Tribunal decided that many of the letters (referred to as “advocacy correspondence”) should be disclosed. The Departments did not appeal this decision, but on 16 October 2012 the Attorney General issued a certificate under section 53(2) FOIA 2000 and regulation 18(6) EIR 2004 stating that he had, on “reasonable grounds”, formed the opinion that the Departments had been entitled to refuse disclosure of the letters, and set out his reasoning. If this Certificate is valid, its effect would be to override a decision of the Upper Tribunal, a judicial body which has the same status as the High Court. |
| Mr Evans issued proceedings to quash the Certificate on the grounds (1) that the reasons given by the Attorney General were not capable of constituting “reasonable grounds” and/or (2) in so far as the advocacy correspondence was concerned with environmental issues, the Certificate was incompatible with Council Directive 2003/4/EC (“the 2003 Directive”). The Divisional Court dismissed his claim. However, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on both grounds. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was therefore whether the Certificate is valid, and in particular (i) whether the Attorney General was entitled to issue a certificate under section 53 FOIA 2000 that he had “on reasonable grounds” formed the opinion that the Departments had been entitled to refuse disclosure; (ii)(a) whether, in any event, regulation 18(6) EIR 2004 complies with the relevant provisions of EU law; and (b) if it does not, whether the Certificate can stand even in relation to the non-environmental information. | Mr Evans issued proceedings to quash the Certificate on the grounds (1) that the reasons given by the Attorney General were not capable of constituting “reasonable grounds” and/or (2) in so far as the advocacy correspondence was concerned with environmental issues, the Certificate was incompatible with Council Directive 2003/4/EC (“the 2003 Directive”). The Divisional Court dismissed his claim. However, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on both grounds. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was therefore whether the Certificate is valid, and in particular (i) whether the Attorney General was entitled to issue a certificate under section 53 FOIA 2000 that he had “on reasonable grounds” formed the opinion that the Departments had been entitled to refuse disclosure; (ii)(a) whether, in any event, regulation 18(6) EIR 2004 complies with the relevant provisions of EU law; and (b) if it does not, whether the Certificate can stand even in relation to the non-environmental information. |
| It should be noted that the Supreme Court has not seen the advocacy correspondence, and did not need to do so in order to determine the points of law set out above. | It should be noted that the Supreme Court has not seen the advocacy correspondence, and did not need to do so in order to determine the points of law set out above. |
| JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
| The Supreme Court dismisses the Attorney General’s appeal. By a majority of 5:2 the Court considers that the Attorney General was not entitled to issue a certificate under section 53 FOIA 2000 in the manner that he did and therefore that the Certificate was invalid. By a majority of 6:1 the Court holds that reg.18(6) is incompatible with the 2003 Directive and must be treated as invalid, and therefore that | The Supreme Court dismisses the Attorney General’s appeal. By a majority of 5:2 the Court considers that the Attorney General was not entitled to issue a certificate under section 53 FOIA 2000 in the manner that he did and therefore that the Certificate was invalid. By a majority of 6:1 the Court holds that reg.18(6) is incompatible with the 2003 Directive and must be treated as invalid, and therefore that |
| The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom | The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 www.supremecourt.uk | Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 www.supremecourt.uk |
| the Certificate would in any event have been invalid insofar as it related to environmental information. | the Certificate would in any event have been invalid insofar as it related to environmental information. |
| REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT | REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT |
| The appeal based on FOIA 2000 | The appeal based on FOIA 2000 |
| Lord Neuberger (with whom Lord Kerr and Lord Reed agree) concludes that section 53 FOIA 2000 does not permit the Attorney General to override a decision of a judicial tribunal or court by issuing a certificate merely because he, a member of the executive, considering the same facts and arguments, takes a different view from that taken by the tribunal or court. This would be unique in the laws of the United Kingdom and would cut across two constitutional principles which are fundamental components of the rule of law, namely that a decision of a court is binding between the parties and cannot be set aside, and that decisions and actions of the executive are reviewable by the courts, and not vice versa [52]. Clear words must be used if the statute is to have that effect, and section 53 is a very long way from being clear enough [58-59]. | Lord Neuberger (with whom Lord Kerr and Lord Reed agree) concludes that section 53 FOIA 2000 does not permit the Attorney General to override a decision of a judicial tribunal or court by issuing a certificate merely because he, a member of the executive, considering the same facts and arguments, takes a different view from that taken by the tribunal or court. This would be unique in the laws of the United Kingdom and would cut across two constitutional principles which are fundamental components of the rule of law, namely that a decision of a court is binding between the parties and cannot be set aside, and that decisions and actions of the executive are reviewable by the courts, and not vice versa [52]. Clear words must be used if the statute is to have that effect, and section 53 is a very long way from being clear enough [58-59]. |
| Lord Mance (with whom Lady Hale agrees) considers that it would be open to the Attorney General to issue a certificate under section 53 if he disagrees with the decision of the Upper Tribunal. However, disagreement with findings of fact or rulings of law in a fully reasoned decision would require the clearest possible justification (and may only be possible in the circumstances suggested by Lord Neuberger at [71-79]), while disagreement as to the weight to be attached to competing public interests would require properly explained and solid reasons [130-131]. In this case the Attorney General impermissibly undertook his own redetermination of the relevant factual background, including certain constitutional conventions on which the Upper Tribunal had heard detailed evidence, which he was not entitled to do. The Attorney General’s certificate does not engage with the closely reasoned analysis of the Upper Tribunal [142]. The Certificate proceeded on the basis of findings which differed radically from those made by the Upper Tribunal without real or adequate explanation, and cannot be regarded as satisfying the test for issue of a certificate [145]. | Lord Mance (with whom Lady Hale agrees) considers that it would be open to the Attorney General to issue a certificate under section 53 if he disagrees with the decision of the Upper Tribunal. However, disagreement with findings of fact or rulings of law in a fully reasoned decision would require the clearest possible justification (and may only be possible in the circumstances suggested by Lord Neuberger at [71-79]), while disagreement as to the weight to be attached to competing public interests would require properly explained and solid reasons [130-131]. In this case the Attorney General impermissibly undertook his own redetermination of the relevant factual background, including certain constitutional conventions on which the Upper Tribunal had heard detailed evidence, which he was not entitled to do. The Attorney General’s certificate does not engage with the closely reasoned analysis of the Upper Tribunal [142]. The Certificate proceeded on the basis of findings which differed radically from those made by the Upper Tribunal without real or adequate explanation, and cannot be regarded as satisfying the test for issue of a certificate [145]. |
| Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes each give judgments dissenting on this issue. They each consider that the Attorney General was entitled to issue the certificate under section 53 on the ground that he did. | Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes each give judgments dissenting on this issue. They each consider that the Attorney General was entitled to issue the certificate under section 53 on the ground that he did. |
| Environmental information under the 2003 Directive | Environmental information under the 2003 Directive |
| Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) point out that article 6.1 requires that, following a refusal by a public authority of a request for environmental information, the refusal must “be reconsidered ... or reviewed administratively”, article 6.2 requires that thereafter the applicant has “access to a review procedure before a court of law or [similar] body] ... whose decisions may become final”, and article 6.3 requires that “[f]inal decisions under paragraph 2 shall be binding on the public authority holding the information” [100]. In light of these provisions, they consider that it would be impermissible for the executive to have another attempt at preventing disclosure, and therefore regulation 18(6) EAIA 2004 is incompatible with article 6 of the 2003 Directive [103]. However, this conclusion would only apply to the environmental information [111]. | Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) point out that article 6.1 requires that, following a refusal by a public authority of a request for environmental information, the refusal must “be reconsidered ... or reviewed administratively”, article 6.2 requires that thereafter the applicant has “access to a review procedure before a court of law or [similar] body] ... whose decisions may become final”, and article 6.3 requires that “[f]inal decisions under paragraph 2 shall be binding on the public authority holding the information” [100]. In light of these provisions, they consider that it would be impermissible for the executive to have another attempt at preventing disclosure, and therefore regulation 18(6) EAIA 2004 is incompatible with article 6 of the 2003 Directive [103]. However, this conclusion would only apply to the environmental information [111]. |
| Lord Wilson dissenting on this point, would have held that the issue of a section 53 certificate in respect of environmental information whose disclosure was ordered by a court or judicial tribunal was not incompatible with the provisions of the 2003 Directive. | Lord Wilson dissenting on this point, would have held that the issue of a section 53 certificate in respect of environmental information whose disclosure was ordered by a court or judicial tribunal was not incompatible with the provisions of the 2003 Directive. |
| UKSC dismisses AG’s appeal v Evans: AG’s certificate withholding disclosure of Prince of Wales’ letters ruled invalid http://t.co/pMjuOfanlO | UKSC dismisses AG’s appeal v Evans: AG’s certificate withholding disclosure of Prince of Wales’ letters ruled invalid http://t.co/pMjuOfanlO |
| Updated at 10.29am GMT | |
| 10.05am GMT10:05 | 10.05am GMT10:05 |
| Here’s some instant reaction: | Here’s some instant reaction: |
| Brilliant 10-year campaign by Guardian reporter @robevansgdn & lawyers @janclemie & @ladywell23 http://t.co/OkUJFsVDUE | Brilliant 10-year campaign by Guardian reporter @robevansgdn & lawyers @janclemie & @ladywell23 http://t.co/OkUJFsVDUE |
| If you see Guardian's @robevansgdn buy him a drink. "Supreme Court allows publication of Prince Charles letters. http://t.co/O3VM08AMXN" | If you see Guardian's @robevansgdn buy him a drink. "Supreme Court allows publication of Prince Charles letters. http://t.co/O3VM08AMXN" |
| Absolutely massive win for the @guardian. Important from a constitutional and #FOI point of view | Absolutely massive win for the @guardian. Important from a constitutional and #FOI point of view |
| 10.03am GMT10:03 | 10.03am GMT10:03 |
| Our video explainer has been updated. | Our video explainer has been updated. |
| 10.00am GMT10:00 | 10.00am GMT10:00 |
| Clarence House expresses disappointment | Clarence House expresses disappointment |
| Reacting to the supreme court’s decision on the letters, Clarence House said it was “disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld”. | Reacting to the supreme court’s decision on the letters, Clarence House said it was “disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld”. |
| 9.59am GMT09:59 | 9.59am GMT09:59 |
| Here’s audio of Neuberger delivering the verdict in the Guardian’s favour. The key passage is: | Here’s audio of Neuberger delivering the verdict in the Guardian’s favour. The key passage is: |
| The Supreme Court dismisses the Attorney General’s appeal. By a majority of 5 to 2 we consider that the Attorney General was not entitled to issue a certificate under section 53 of FOIA | The Supreme Court dismisses the Attorney General’s appeal. By a majority of 5 to 2 we consider that the Attorney General was not entitled to issue a certificate under section 53 of FOIA |
| 9.57am GMT09:57 | 9.57am GMT09:57 |
| The supreme court has cleared the way for the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles to ministers, declaring that an attempt by the government to keep them concealed was unlawful, writes Rob Evans. | The supreme court has cleared the way for the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles to ministers, declaring that an attempt by the government to keep them concealed was unlawful, writes Rob Evans. |
| The verdict - the culmination of a 10-year legal fight by the Guardian - is a significant blow for the government, which has been battling to protect Charles from scrutiny over his “particularly frank” interventions on public policy. | The verdict - the culmination of a 10-year legal fight by the Guardian - is a significant blow for the government, which has been battling to protect Charles from scrutiny over his “particularly frank” interventions on public policy. |
| Five out of the seven judges in the court ruled in favour of the Guardian. The verdict was delivered on Thursday by Lord Neuberger, the president of the court. | Five out of the seven judges in the court ruled in favour of the Guardian. The verdict was delivered on Thursday by Lord Neuberger, the president of the court. |
| No date has been fixed yet for the publication of the letters. The Sun reported on Wednesday that David Cameron has told Charles that he will attempt to change the law to prevent the letters ever being released. | No date has been fixed yet for the publication of the letters. The Sun reported on Wednesday that David Cameron has told Charles that he will attempt to change the law to prevent the letters ever being released. |
| The verdict was delivered on Thursday by Lord Neuberger, the president of the court. The judges concluded that the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, did not have the legal power to veto a freedom of information tribunal, which had decided the letters should be published. | The verdict was delivered on Thursday by Lord Neuberger, the president of the court. The judges concluded that the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, did not have the legal power to veto a freedom of information tribunal, which had decided the letters should be published. |
| In 2012, the tribunal ruled that the 27 pieces of correspondence between the prince and ministers in Tony Blair’s government should be made public. | In 2012, the tribunal ruled that the 27 pieces of correspondence between the prince and ministers in Tony Blair’s government should be made public. |
| The tribunal said it was in the public interest “for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government.” | The tribunal said it was in the public interest “for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government.” |
| Grieve over-ruled the tribunal, arguing that publication of the letters between September 2004 and April 2005 would “seriously damage” the Prince of Wales’s kingship. | Grieve over-ruled the tribunal, arguing that publication of the letters between September 2004 and April 2005 would “seriously damage” the Prince of Wales’s kingship. |
| 9.53am GMT09:53 | 9.53am GMT09:53 |
| Supreme court rules against government | Supreme court rules against government |
| Neuberger delivers the ruling: | Neuberger delivers the ruling: |
| We dismiss the attorney general’s appeal and the decision of the upper tribunal that the advocacy correspondence should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act and, in the case of environmental material, the Environmental Information regulations 2003, stands. | We dismiss the attorney general’s appeal and the decision of the upper tribunal that the advocacy correspondence should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act and, in the case of environmental material, the Environmental Information regulations 2003, stands. |
| That’s legal jargon for a defeat for the government. The Guardian, and its reporter Rob Evans, have won their 10-year legal battle. | That’s legal jargon for a defeat for the government. The Guardian, and its reporter Rob Evans, have won their 10-year legal battle. |
| Updated at 10.01am GMT | Updated at 10.01am GMT |
| 9.52am GMT09:52 | 9.52am GMT09:52 |
| Neuberger says the court has not seen the letters. | Neuberger says the court has not seen the letters. |
| 9.52am GMT09:52 | 9.52am GMT09:52 |
| Neuberger name checks Rob Evans goes through the Guardian’s appeals. | Neuberger name checks Rob Evans goes through the Guardian’s appeals. |
| He noted the attorney general’s decision to veto publishing the memos. | He noted the attorney general’s decision to veto publishing the memos. |
| 9.50am GMT09:50 | 9.50am GMT09:50 |
| Here we go. Lord Neuberger has started to give the ruling with some legal background. | Here we go. Lord Neuberger has started to give the ruling with some legal background. |
| 9.42am GMT09:42 | 9.42am GMT09:42 |
| The supreme court’s live feed is now up and running. Freedom of Information campaigner Matt Burgess tweets a screengrab. | The supreme court’s live feed is now up and running. Freedom of Information campaigner Matt Burgess tweets a screengrab. |
| Supreme Court video for Prince Charles's letters decision is now live. Action to start soon https://t.co/IIqU0zVusH pic.twitter.com/QzLtIaVpH9 | Supreme Court video for Prince Charles's letters decision is now live. Action to start soon https://t.co/IIqU0zVusH pic.twitter.com/QzLtIaVpH9 |
| Updated at 9.45am GMT | Updated at 9.45am GMT |
| 9.38am GMT09:38 | 9.38am GMT09:38 |
| Rob Booth is at the supreme court. | Rob Booth is at the supreme court. |
| Prince Charles memos ruling to be handed down in 10 mins by Lord Neuberger, pres. of Supreme Court. Background here: http://t.co/1IFr79YmfD | Prince Charles memos ruling to be handed down in 10 mins by Lord Neuberger, pres. of Supreme Court. Background here: http://t.co/1IFr79YmfD |
| Key question for judges in Prince Charles memos case: Was govt right in 2012 to veto top judges' decision order release of letters. | Key question for judges in Prince Charles memos case: Was govt right in 2012 to veto top judges' decision order release of letters. |
| Updated at 9.40am GMT | Updated at 9.40am GMT |
| 9.36am GMT09:36 | 9.36am GMT09:36 |
| Republicans are watching with interest. | Republicans are watching with interest. |
| Will we end royal secrecy and jeopardise the monarchy or keep royal secrecy and jeopardise democracy? #RoyalSecrets | Will we end royal secrecy and jeopardise the monarchy or keep royal secrecy and jeopardise democracy? #RoyalSecrets |
| 9.20am GMT09:20 | 9.20am GMT09:20 |
| The supreme court’s live feed is due to broadcast the ruling here. | The supreme court’s live feed is due to broadcast the ruling here. |
| Updated at 9.23am GMT | Updated at 9.23am GMT |
| 9.08am GMT09:08 | 9.08am GMT09:08 |
| Prince Charles’s biographer Catherine Mayer, underlines how awkward publication of the letters has become for Prince Charles. | Prince Charles’s biographer Catherine Mayer, underlines how awkward publication of the letters has become for Prince Charles. |
| Speaking to Sky News, she said: | Speaking to Sky News, she said: |
| For Clarence House, they are in a no-win situation here. | For Clarence House, they are in a no-win situation here. |
| If the letters come out clearly there will be some embarrassment relating to maybe a couple of them, if they do not it will look like they have had assistance to bury something, they can’t win. | If the letters come out clearly there will be some embarrassment relating to maybe a couple of them, if they do not it will look like they have had assistance to bury something, they can’t win. |
| 9.04am GMT09:04 | 9.04am GMT09:04 |
| Summary | Summary |
| Welcome to our live coverage of what could be the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Guardian to publish the memos written by Prince Charles to British government ministers. | Welcome to our live coverage of what could be the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Guardian to publish the memos written by Prince Charles to British government ministers. |
| The supreme court in London is due to rule on whether the letters, known as the “black spider memos” due to Charles’ spindly handwriting, should remain confidential. | The supreme court in London is due to rule on whether the letters, known as the “black spider memos” due to Charles’ spindly handwriting, should remain confidential. |
| The 27 letters that are subject of the case were written in 2004 and 2005 to ministers in Tony Blair’s government. | The 27 letters that are subject of the case were written in 2004 and 2005 to ministers in Tony Blair’s government. |
| Despite an earlier court victory, disclosure of the memos was vetoed in 2012 by the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve. He claimed the correspondence contains the prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and disclosure might undermine his “position of political neutrality”. | Despite an earlier court victory, disclosure of the memos was vetoed in 2012 by the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve. He claimed the correspondence contains the prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and disclosure might undermine his “position of political neutrality”. |
| The letters, which show Charles’s attempts to lobby ministers, were described by the freedom of information tribunal as “advocacy correspondence”. | The letters, which show Charles’s attempts to lobby ministers, were described by the freedom of information tribunal as “advocacy correspondence”. |
| This video explains the background to the decision. | This video explains the background to the decision. |
| A decision is expected at 9.45am and is to be handed down by the president of the court Lord Neuberger, flanked by Lady Hale and Lord Mance. | A decision is expected at 9.45am and is to be handed down by the president of the court Lord Neuberger, flanked by Lady Hale and Lord Mance. |
| Robert Booth and Rob Evans explain what’s at stake: | Robert Booth and Rob Evans explain what’s at stake: |
| If released, the letters could provide fresh ammunition to the prince’s critics, including republicans, who argue that someone who is known to have privately lobbied ministers and disagreed with government policy on issues ranging from farming practices to complementary medicine, can never successfully unify the nation as monarch. | If released, the letters could provide fresh ammunition to the prince’s critics, including republicans, who argue that someone who is known to have privately lobbied ministers and disagreed with government policy on issues ranging from farming practices to complementary medicine, can never successfully unify the nation as monarch. |
| The monarchy’s own website states that “the system of constitutional monarchy bridges the discontinuity of party politics,” but if the letters show him attacking Labour policies, he risks being seen as part of that discontinuity, critics said. | The monarchy’s own website states that “the system of constitutional monarchy bridges the discontinuity of party politics,” but if the letters show him attacking Labour policies, he risks being seen as part of that discontinuity, critics said. |
| But they add: | But they add: |
| Even if the supreme court rules in favour of releasing the memos it will not open the floodgates to Charles’ correspondence with ministers, who have tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to impose a blanket ban on the publication of any correspondence involving the monarch or the heir to the throne for 20 years, or five years after their death, whichever is longer. | Even if the supreme court rules in favour of releasing the memos it will not open the floodgates to Charles’ correspondence with ministers, who have tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to impose a blanket ban on the publication of any correspondence involving the monarch or the heir to the throne for 20 years, or five years after their death, whichever is longer. |
| Ministers conceded that they had made a mistake when Tony Blair’s government originally passed the Act in 2000, because it permitted the disclosure of the prince’s letters if it was shown to be in the public interest. The ban was dubbed “the Prince Charles amendment” by one MP, implemented, according to Whitehall sources, following pressure from the royal family. | Ministers conceded that they had made a mistake when Tony Blair’s government originally passed the Act in 2000, because it permitted the disclosure of the prince’s letters if it was shown to be in the public interest. The ban was dubbed “the Prince Charles amendment” by one MP, implemented, according to Whitehall sources, following pressure from the royal family. |
| Updated at 9.05am GMT | Updated at 9.05am GMT |
| 9.01am GMT09:01 | 9.01am GMT09:01 |
| The Guardian’s battle to publish the letters featured in a Radio 4 documentary last year called the Royal Activist by the political journalist Elinor Goodman. | The Guardian’s battle to publish the letters featured in a Radio 4 documentary last year called the Royal Activist by the political journalist Elinor Goodman. |
| Rob Evans, the Guardian reporter who originally applied to see the correspondence, explained to her why the Guardian wants to see the memos published : | Rob Evans, the Guardian reporter who originally applied to see the correspondence, explained to her why the Guardian wants to see the memos published : |
| If he is having an effect on official government policy making we think the public ought to know about that. And furthermore the public ought to be given the chance to judge whether or not they think that is right or wrong. | If he is having an effect on official government policy making we think the public ought to know about that. And furthermore the public ought to be given the chance to judge whether or not they think that is right or wrong. |
| The programme also featured barrister Geoffrey Robertson who challenged Grieve’s decision to veto the memos. | The programme also featured barrister Geoffrey Robertson who challenged Grieve’s decision to veto the memos. |
| He said Grieve had “left the sphere of rationality” by “pretending that the letters somehow have to be kept secret because they are part of a monarchy training course ... or that we would have less respect for the monarchy if we knew what was in them.”Goodman said there were indications that Buckingham Palace thinks the then attorney general elevated the importance of the letters by the way he handled the case against publication. | He said Grieve had “left the sphere of rationality” by “pretending that the letters somehow have to be kept secret because they are part of a monarchy training course ... or that we would have less respect for the monarchy if we knew what was in them.”Goodman said there were indications that Buckingham Palace thinks the then attorney general elevated the importance of the letters by the way he handled the case against publication. |
| Updated at 9.07am GMT | Updated at 9.07am GMT |