Legal Battle Over Prince Charles’ Letters Reaches Supreme Court

[cinrit]

A nine-year battle to force the publication of a set of secret letters written by Prince Charles reaches the highest court in the UK next week.

The supreme court will consider whether the government was entitled to override a court and block the disclosure of letters sent by the prince to ministers in which he sought to influence official policies.

The government maintains that the content of the letters would cause constitutional difficulties and "seriously damage" Charles's future role as king if they were published.

The two-day hearing in front of Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, and six senior judges starts on Monday.

More: Legal battle over Prince Charles? letters reaches supreme court | UK news | The Guardian

Cindy

[snokitty]

Legal battle over Prince Charles? letters reaches supreme court | UK news | The Guardian

Ministers have spent at least £275,000 in legal fees to prevent the disclosure of the letters

What a total waste of funds.   :wacko:

[Limabeany]

It is an absurd, outrageous and inappropriate use of public funds to defend Charles from his actions as a citizen, he should be paying for this himself, don't the British people care how their money is misused?

If he avouds political matters, what is he afraid of???

Ministers have spent at least £275,000 in legal fees to prevent the disclosure of the letters which Grieve said contained the heir's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs".

Earlier this week the Guardian cited a well-placed source who has known Charles for many years as saying the prince is ready to reshape the monarch's role if he becomes king and make "heartfelt interventions" in national life, in contrast to the Queen's taciturn discretion on public affairs.

The letters he is believed to have sent to ministers have been dubbed the "black spider memos" because of his scratchy handwriting.

The prince says he aims to encourage public debate over vital issues, such as the environment, genetically modified crops, and planning, but that he avoids party political matters.

[Curryong]

I doubt very much that there is anything in the letters that Charles would be actually afraid of being made known. However, I do think he would be acutely embarrassed at some of his wafflings about the issues close to his heart getting into the public forum. I also sincerely hope that there is no lobbying specifically for the Duchy of Cornwall in all this.

My views on this are known. I wish he'd stop all these regular contacts with politicians. I can see dangers in a future monarch becoming too friendly with senior Government and Opposition figures, or conversely, rubbing them up the wrong way.

I think he would do himself and the public a great service if he adopted his mother's approach. Also, now the damage has been done, so to speak, he ought to allow those letters to be released. I'm wondering whether there is anything referencing other politicians in these letters that everyone concerned wants kept secret.

[snokitty]

Government in supreme court bid to keep Prince Charles letters secret | UK news | The Guardian


Double post auto-merged: November 25, 2014, 04:35:40 AM

Secret letters from Prince Charles - The Morning Show

[cinrit]

What Might Prince Charles's Letters Reveal?

Seven Supreme Court justices are due to consider whether letters from Prince Charles to seven government departments should be made public.

This has been a lengthy and costly legal battle which should be nearing its end.

The focus on how Prince Charles operates has greater significance the closer he gets to the throne.  We know he'll be a different monarch to his mother, but just how different?

The Guardian newspaper and the prince's critics argue the public has a right to know what influence he exerts behind the scenes.

More: BBC News - What might Prince Charles's letters reveal?

Prince Charles Letters: Minister's Veto of Publication Was Lawful, Court Told  (VIDEO)

A senior government minister acted lawfully when he overrode a court and vetoed the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles, the supreme court heard on Monday.

James Eadie, QC for the government, rejected suggestions that the use of the veto by Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general at the time, was an "intrinsically suspect or objectionable constitutional aberration".

He told the court that parliament had taken "a carefully considered, deliberate decision" to give ministers such as the attorney general power to override rulings by the freedom of information tribunal "to protect the public interest where real and significant issues arise".

More: Prince Charles letters: minister?s veto of publication was lawful, court told | UK news | The Guardian

[snokitty]

Attorney general?s rejection of ruling on Charles letters was unlawful, court told | UK news | The Guardian

Dominic Grieve behaved contrary to fundamental constitutional principle, lawyer for the Guardian tells supreme court

The government's most senior legal adviser acted unlawfully when he overrode a court and blocked the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles, the supreme court has been told.

Dinah Rose QC, for the Guardian, said Dominic Grieve, when he was attorney general, had behaved "contrary to fundamental constitutional principle". She said Grieve could not override a court simply because he disagreed with its verdict.

Three judges in a court had ordered the publication of the prince's letters to government ministers on the grounds that the public should see how the heir to the throne had sought to influence official policies.

In 2012, Grieve overrode the court, saying the letters had to be kept confidential as their contents would seriously damage his future role as monarch by compromising the position that the sovereign was politically neutral.

[Limabeany]

That is scary...