Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Prince Charles letters: attorney general acted unlawfully, say senior judges
Ruling in the court of appeal backs Guardian campaign to have letters to ministers released under freedom of information law
Three senior judges have ruled that Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, acted unlawfully when he blocked the publication of letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers.
...
Grieve had refused access to the letters, arguing that they could cause constitutional problems. He had said their contents could "seriously damage" the prince's ability to perform his duties when he became king because they could cast doubt on his political neutrality.
On Wednesday, Dyson and two colleagues in the appeal court quashed a veto that Grieve had used to override an independent tribunal. The freedom of information tribunal had previously ruled against the government and had ordered that the letters should be disclosed because the public had a right to see how the heir to the throne had sought to influence government.
...
Grieve had said that a cornerstone of the British constitution was that the monarch could not be seen to be favouring one political party over another. But he had said that 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".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters
Three senior judges have ruled that Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, acted unlawfully when he blocked the publication of letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers.
...
Grieve had refused access to the letters, arguing that they could cause constitutional problems. He had said their contents could "seriously damage" the prince's ability to perform his duties when he became king because they could cast doubt on his political neutrality.
On Wednesday, Dyson and two colleagues in the appeal court quashed a veto that Grieve had used to override an independent tribunal. The freedom of information tribunal had previously ruled against the government and had ordered that the letters should be disclosed because the public had a right to see how the heir to the throne had sought to influence government.
...
Grieve had said that a cornerstone of the British constitution was that the monarch could not be seen to be favouring one political party over another. But he had said that 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".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters
Good - I want everyone to know how much Charles - not, of course, Head of State or with any post in government, even ceremonial - gets to stick his oar in. Grieve's reasoning - that the monarch could not be seen to be favouring one political party - is particularly weaselly. What 'the constitution' says is that the monarch should not favour one party, not that they should not be seen to favour one. If Charles does favour the Tories, we need that out in the open now, so we can tell him to stop before he becomes monarch (or, even better, get rid of the monarchy before he succeeds).