Prince Charles' letters to be published
Prince Charles letters: Supreme Court ruling allows publication
A panel of seven senior judges rules letters written by Charles to government ministers can be revealed to the public
9:56AM GMT 26 Mar 2015
The UK's highest court has refused to overturn a ruling which paved the way for publication of letters written by the Prince of Wales to government ministers.
Supreme Court justices in London rejected a challenge by the Attorney General, the Government's principal legal adviser, against a decision by Court of Appeal judges that he has unlawfully prevented the public seeing the letters.
The appeal judges unanimously ruled last year that the Attorney General has "no good reason" for using his ministerial veto and overriding the decision of an independent tribunal, chaired by a High Court judge, in favour of disclosure of the royal correspondence.
But Supreme Court justices were urged at a hearing in November to find that the Court of Appeal judges "erred" in reaching their conclusion.
On Thursday the court dismissed the Attorney General's appeal.
Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision on the letters, Clarence House said it was "disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld".
Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said there was a "fundamental composite principle" behind the court's reasons for dismissing the appeal.
He announced: "That principle is that a decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive."
Clarence House reacted with disappointment to the decision.
A spokeswoman for the Prince said: "This is a matter for the Government. Clarence House is disappointed the principle of privacy has not been upheld."
The move is a major blow for Charles.
Sent to seven government departments, the frank notes penned between September 2004 and March 2005 reflect, according to previous attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs".
Charles has long been accused of "bombarding" ministers with "black spider" memos attacking government policy. His letters are so named after his distinctive handwriting and abundant use of underlining and exclamation marks.
The case is believed to mark the first time that anyone has challenged the Attorney General's powers to block access to information.
In 2005 Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied to see a number of written communications between Charles and various government ministers between September 2004 and April 2005.
At the Supreme Court hearing in November, James Eadie QC, for the Attorney General, told the justices that "the government departments considered that they had no duty to disclose the requested information, and indeed had countervailing duties of confidentiality and as data controllers not to disclose it", and the Information Commissioner agreed.
The Attorney General had "strong grounds for his opinion that the Government and the Commissioner were right to find that the disputed information was exempt".
Mr Eadie told the panel of seven justices: "Everyone has the right to respect for their correspondence.
"Such respect is necessary not only as an aspect of privacy, but also to enable freedom of expression, which would inevitably be inhibited by the removal of the right to communicate privately.
"All the more so in the case of the Prince of Wales, whose freedom to express himself publicly is constrained by his role as heir to the throne."
Charles is known for his strong opinions on a range of topics from the environment and farming to complementary medicine and architecture.
He has faced accusations in the past of "meddling" in day-to-day politics and criticism over his "black spider memos" - the name given to the handwritten letters he pens to government ministers expressing his views.
Mr Evans sought disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), and under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
The Upper Tribunal (UT) declared in September 2012 that he was entitled to see "advocacy correspondence", described as letters the Prince had written seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views.
The UT decided that the Government was required to disclose 27 out of the 30 requested items of correspondence.
A month after the UT ruling, the Attorney General used his ministerial veto by issuing a certificate under Section 53 of the FOIA.
He said the public could interpret the letters sent to ministers in the last Labour government as showing Charles to be "disagreeing with government policy".
The Attorney General said any perception that Charles had disagreed with Tony Blair's government "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".
• How the Freedom of Information Act has protected the Royal family
In his opinion, Government departments were legally entitled to refuse disclosure because the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince's "preparation for becoming king".
Mr Evans accused him of failing to show "reasonable grounds" for blocking disclosure.
The journalist lost his case in the High Court, but Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Pitchford all agreed at the Court of Appeal that the Attorney General had gone wrong in law and the Section 53 certificate should be quashed.
At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling, the Attorney General was Dominic Grieve. The office is currently held by Jeremy Wright QC.
Video: Prince Charles letters: Supreme Court ruling allows publication - Telegraph
