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/2015/mar/26/when-will-prince-charless-letters-be-published

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
When will Prince Charles's letters be published? When will Prince Charles's letters be published?
(about 1 hour later)
The supreme court has ruled that the British government’s attempts to block the release of letters written by Prince Charles to ministers were unlawful. The ruling clears the way for the publication of the “black spider” memos, so called because of the prince’s notoriously untidy handwriting.The supreme court has ruled that the British government’s attempts to block the release of letters written by Prince Charles to ministers were unlawful. The ruling clears the way for the publication of the “black spider” memos, so called because of the prince’s notoriously untidy handwriting.
Here’s what the case means.Here’s what the case means.
The backgroundThe background
In April 2005, the Guardian submitted a freedom of information request for copies of 27 letters written by the heir to the throne and ministers in seven government departments between September 2004 and April 2005. The government refused to release the letters, arguing that the prince was protected by a constitutional convention. They argued that the letters were part of the prince’s preparations to become king, and he was educating himself in the business of government.In April 2005, the Guardian submitted a freedom of information request for copies of 27 letters written by the heir to the throne and ministers in seven government departments between September 2004 and April 2005. The government refused to release the letters, arguing that the prince was protected by a constitutional convention. They argued that the letters were part of the prince’s preparations to become king, and he was educating himself in the business of government.
In September 2012, a freedom of information tribunal ruled against the government, saying the public was entitled to know how the prince seeks to alter government policy.In September 2012, a freedom of information tribunal ruled against the government, saying the public was entitled to know how the prince seeks to alter government policy.
Instead of appealing against the ruling, the government, in the shape of the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, issued a veto, arguing that publication of the letters would “seriously damage” the prince’s ability to perform his duties. The Guardian challenged this veto, and the supreme court ruled on Thursday that Grieve’s actions had no basis in law.Instead of appealing against the ruling, the government, in the shape of the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, issued a veto, arguing that publication of the letters would “seriously damage” the prince’s ability to perform his duties. The Guardian challenged this veto, and the supreme court ruled on Thursday that Grieve’s actions had no basis in law.
What did the judges say?What did the judges say?
The panel of seven judges upheld the Guardian’s appeal on a 5-2 split.The panel of seven judges upheld the Guardian’s appeal on a 5-2 split.
Lord Neuberger, the president of the court, said it was not reasonable for Grieve to issue the veto “simply because, on the same facts and admittedly reasonably, he takes a different view from that adopted by a court of record after a full public oral hearing”.Lord Neuberger, the president of the court, said it was not reasonable for Grieve to issue the veto “simply because, on the same facts and admittedly reasonably, he takes a different view from that adopted by a court of record after a full public oral hearing”.
He added: “There is no clear or specific suggestion anywhere in the [Freedom of Information Act] that it is intended that [a veto] should enable a member of the executive to override a judicial decision.”He added: “There is no clear or specific suggestion anywhere in the [Freedom of Information Act] that it is intended that [a veto] should enable a member of the executive to override a judicial decision.”
Neuberger concluded: “[Grieve] proceeded on the basis of findings which differed radically from those made by the upper tribunal without real or adequate explanation.”Neuberger concluded: “[Grieve] proceeded on the basis of findings which differed radically from those made by the upper tribunal without real or adequate explanation.”
Two supreme court judges, Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes, gave dissenting judgments on the issue and believe that Grieve was entitled to veto the court’s decision.Two supreme court judges, Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes, gave dissenting judgments on the issue and believe that Grieve was entitled to veto the court’s decision.
When will the letters be published ?When will the letters be published ?
No date has been fixed yet. Downing Street accepted that the government would not launch any further legal action to keep the letters secret. “The steps now in terms of this specific case is that these letters will be published,” a spokeswoman said.No date has been fixed yet. Downing Street accepted that the government would not launch any further legal action to keep the letters secret. “The steps now in terms of this specific case is that these letters will be published,” a spokeswoman said.
It is unclear how exactly that will happen. It appears that there will be a hearing at the freedom of information tribunal where there will be further legal argument over whether parts of the letters should be redacted because of as yet unclarified privacy concerns.It is unclear how exactly that will happen. It appears that there will be a hearing at the freedom of information tribunal where there will be further legal argument over whether parts of the letters should be redacted because of as yet unclarified privacy concerns.
The Downing Street spokeswoman said the government would have to do “preparatory work” before releasing the correspondence. “It is to look at what information will be released and the best way to do that ... what we will be doing is complying with the judgment of the court but we will need to study and look at the best way in which to do that.” The Downing Street spokeswoman said the government would have to do “preparatory work” before releasing the correspondence. “It is to look at what information will be released and the best way to do that … what we will be doing is complying with the judgment of the court but we will need to study and look at the best way in which to do that.”