Show Hide image

An abuse of the law to protect Prince Charles?

David Allen Green on royal privileges.

In 2012 one would not expect the royal family still to have legal cover for its involvement in practical political matters. However, the coalition government has decided to overrule an independent tribunal, so that the scale of the meddling by Prince Charles in public life cannot be disclosed.

The Prince of Wales is as entitled to seek to influence policy and official decision-making as any other citizen. But what he is surely not entitled to do is hide all his lobbying behind the cloak of legal privilege. And yet, that is what has happened. The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has vetoed disclosure of the prince’s letters to ministers and departments.

There is no good reason whatsoever for this veto, legal or otherwise. In September, a specialist information law tribunal ordered the disclosure of these letters under the Freedom of Information Act, in a 126-page, carefully worded decision. The tribunal rightly held that there is a public interest in disclosure of this ongoing attempt by Prince Charles to influence the work of government. Indeed, nothing could be a more obvious proposition. The request for disclosure was by the Guardian journalist Rob Evans. It is now hoped that the Guardian will challenge Grieve’s decision in the high court.

We supposedly live in a constitutional monarchy, which means that any political powers of the royal family are subject to constitutional restraint. But one does not have to be a republican to be aghast at the government’s attempt to give the prince a blanket waiver from the Freedom of Information Act.

David Allen Green is the New Statesman’s legal correspondent

By David Allen Green

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

This article first appeared in Something Rotten

2012-10-29