Prince Charles letters: minister’s veto of publication was

lawful, court told

Supreme court hears QC James Eadie open the government’s latest effort in its nine-year
campaign to keep the letters secret, 24 November 2014
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”.
Grieve overruled three judges who had decided the public had the right to see how the
prince had written to ministers in an effort to influence official policies.
Eadie was opening the government’s latest attempt to keep a set of such letters secret.
Backed by the prince, it has refused a freedom of information request from the Guardian for
copies of the correspondence for nine years.
Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, and six leading judges will consider
legal arguments for two days before delivering a judgment at a later date.
The prince has gained a reputation for writing private letters to government ministers
promoting his views. The letters have been called “black spider memos” because of his
scrawled handwriting.
At issue in the supreme court hearing are 27 letters exchanged between the heir to the
throne and ministers in seven Whitehall departments between September 2004 and April 2005.
Three judges in a freedom of information tribunal ruled in 2012 that the letters should be
disclosed, on the basis that the public was entitled to know how and when the prince sought to
influence government.
Grieve, however, used his power of veto to overrule the tribunal, arguing that publication
would seriously damage Charles’s future role as king. He said the letters had to be kept secret
to preserve the prince’s political neutrality.
The court of appeal ruled in March that Grieve’s use of the veto had been unlawful. Lord
Dyson, the leading civil judge in England and Wales, and two senior judges decided that Grieve
had “no good reason for overriding the meticulous decision” of the tribunal.
On Monday, Eadie told the supreme court it was plain that parliament had given ministers
the power to veto rulings from the tribunal on reasonable grounds when the freedom of
information act was passed.
“It is acknowledged that it is unusual for parliament to bestow on the executive a power to
override a decision of a tribunal or court,” he said.
“However there is nothing constitutionally out of the ordinary in parliament deciding that the
ultimate primary decision-maker on where the public interest lies in the context of disclosure
should be the executive.
 “It is clear that parliament decided … that the highest level of government should be
permitted to have the final say as to whether information, the disclosure of which it considered to
be damaging to the public interest, should be disclosed.”
He also said that “a premise that the veto is some form of intrinsically suspect or
objectionable constitutional aberration” lay at the heart of the court of appeal’s decision that
Grieve’s use of the veto had been unlawful. He added that the power of veto was based on the
“premise that a democratically accountable senior minister is ultimately best placed to assess
the public interest”.
Dinah Rose QC is due to put the Guardian’s case on Tuesday.
Last week the newspaper revealed how Charles was set to reshape the sovereign’s role by
making “heartfelt interventions” in national life when he becomes king.

Comments:
1. Republic Now!
2. Wouldn't it be appalling if somebody leaked these letters?
Really ghastly. I hope that doesn't happen.
It might bring down the monarchy.
God forbid.
3. Absolutely. We wouldn't want these letters to LEAK wouldn't we? Let’s just silence this
debate right now and not put IDEAS in people’s heads about LEAKING the letters. Forget
you ever read this.
Stop it now!
4. Wouldn't it be appalling if somebody leaked these letters? 
Really ghastly.
He said the letters had to be kept secret to preserve the prince’s political neutrality. 
The latter is no less than an admission that revealing the letters would prove his lack of
neutrality and as for the "public" being kept in ignorance to "protect the public interest", how
can the public have any respect whatsoever for such weasel speak?
5. We republicans can live in hope! This clown pays less tax than the guy putting his toothpaste
on his brush. Or the guy boiling half a dozen eggs all timed differently!
6. ‘Republic now!’
If you know a good one, go to it.
7. Germany? Austria? Switzerland? There are more, you know. Costa Rica?
8. Isn't it damning enough that these letters are bad enough to question Charles's constitutional
position without even knowing the content? It doesn't matter if you're a republican or a
monarchist it seems to be that he is unfit to hold the position of king of the realm.
9. Probably they just make it clear how much of a dimwit he is, as if we don't already know....
certainly they do not display any neutrality (I mean, why would he bother to write, ' I really
have no position on this'?); arguably, it is the monarch who has a duty of neutrality, and he is
not a monarch yet. Neutrality comes with the role, not the person. I really fail to see how
disclosing the letters would damage his neutrality, as he is not required to be neutral 'yet'
(experts on constitutional law, please correct me on this); I imagine they are more damaging
for government, if they evidence the fact that the ministers did indeed follow his 'advice
10. His great great grandad stole that land fair and square! How dare you question his right to
rule it?
I can't believe the argument is whether to publish letters and not, should we still allow a
monarchy that was established in the feudal ages to rule us?
11. We are continually told that he is some sort of King-in-training; therefore it seems to me that
any opinion he ventures to government (or anyone) *should* be neutral.
Neutrality does not mean "I have no opinion on this" ... that just means he has no opinion.
Neutrality means "not taking sides".
12. I know he is thick and all, but how long does he need to be trained? 
Mine was just a shorthand, I meant to say that obviously his letters are not neutral as he
certainly would not waste his time to write that he was neutral on any particular topic.
Apparently, they include such gems as the risks of political correctness (the usually refuge of
the intellectually challenged).
13. arguably, it is the monarch who has a duty of neutrality, and he is not a monarch yet.
Neutrality comes with the role, not the person
This is a fair point but, as in all things, the devil is in the details. In this case the text of the
letters and, to a certain extent, his closeness to becoming King. If the letters have a general
philosophical tone such as wishing for a broader prosperity among those living in the UK,
then no real problem. But more specific attempts to influence public policy could be troubling.
I imagine they are more damaging for government, if they evidence the fact that the
ministers did indeed follow his 'advice'
I don't think the quality of his advice is the problem here. After all, don't you want ministers to
respond intelligently to any advice they receive? Should it matter to anyone where it came
from? Is good advice from the Devil still not good advice?
The problem is not the quality of the advice, be it good bad or indifferent, but the fact that the
future King has sought to influence policy. This aspect of the monarchy has been eroding
since William IV and attempts by the future King to change that course will be met with much
resistance and consequent difficulties.
14. Why would Charles want his letters kept secret if he wants to take a bigger interest in the
running of the country, i.e. his point of view?
You can't have a point of view if no one knows it!
We must speculate what he is trying to hide, it hardly helps his case!
15. This most definitely is not protecting the public interest. It is however protecting the interests
of Prince Charles, the monarchy in general and the establishment. The problem is that those
sitting in judgement on these matters think that the interests of the establishment and the
public are one and the same. They most definitely are not.
16. Why should they uphold the public interest (or the interest of the public) over our
‘constitution’? We live in a constitutional monarchy, not a republic/democracy - and like it or
not, one (now two or even four) people sit outside the general legal framework.
17. Grieve, however, used his power of veto to overrule the tribunal, arguing that publication
would seriously damage Charles’s future role as king.
Then surely it was most unwise to have written them in the first place?
He said the letters had to be kept secret to preserve the prince’s political neutrality.
But doesn't that imply he isn't neutral?
18. Surely the best way to demonstrate Price Charles's political neutrality is simply to publish the
letters, which will no doubt show precisely how politically neutral they are.
19. I really don't understand why the guardian is pursuing this. I thought that they didn't believe
in snooping on people.
What would Eddie and Glenn have to say about this, what would they say?
20. Private individuals are different to the monarch, future head of state, with political influence
and power.
21. I really don't understand why the guardian is pursuing this. I thought that they didn't believe
in snooping on people.
You're confusing private with political.
 If Charles had written to his nanny saying that 'I do wish mummy would let me be king as
you know I would be very good at it.' that would be private.
However if he writes to a minister and says, ' I need more servants I consider it appalling that
I have to wipe my own backside, so give me more money.' That is political and not private
and we have a right to know.
22. Why do the letters have to be kept secret to preserve the Prince's neutrality? Doesn't the
secrecy show the opposite?
23. The monarchy had my vague support up until now, (in that I wasn't bothered or upset
enough by them to want a republic), but this may have just tipped the balance.
24. Charles' ego will finish the monarchy in this country for good.
25. So the establishment pulls together again to help one of its own. Same as the pedophile
rings and the same as they did with the phone hacking scandal.
We pay for the Royals and we deserve to know what they are getting up to. If they don't want
this scrutiny then they need to stop suckling off the tax payers’ teat and look after
themselves.
26. So Charles "believes he has a duty to relay public opinion to those in power" through his
"heartfelt interventions". Yet we are now told that those "interventions" should remain secret
"in the public interest".
The man should be put out to pasture.
27. And he understands public opinion exactly how? Maybe he has a servant to tell him?
28. How can keeping the letters "preserve the prince's political neutrality" when he hasn't been
politically neutral by writing them? I'm a Royalist, but I can see problems if, when he meets
the PM weekly at those meetings, instead of "advising and guiding", he harangues and
pushes his own agenda. He's a non-elected figurehead
29. Why is the Government so keen to protect the illusion of his political neutrality? Perhaps we
may discover just how much of a farce our so-called democratic system truly is, our how
much of a numpty our future king is, or both?
30. If they're concerned that publication might make him look like an Idiot, they really needn't
worry.
31. "publication would seriously damage Charles’s future role as king."
So it's not about protecting the public interest, it's about protecting Charles from his stupid
self at the cost of the public. Outrageous.
32. How much has all this cost?
33. Especially to taxpayers. Even Charles’s Lawyers are really paid by taxpayer funding.
34. Even before Charles is crowned King look at the cost to taxpayers of these Supreme Court
proceedings. Consider the cost of the teams of Lawyers.
If Charles is outspoken and interfering now what will he be like when he is King?