This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/08/government-wrongly-blocked-prine-charles

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Minister accused of wrongly blocking publication of Prince Charles letters Minister accused of wrongly blocking publication of Prince Charles letters
(about 7 hours later)
The attorney general, Dominc Grieve, was accused in court on Wednesday of wrongly concealing details of Prince Charles's lobbying campaigns. The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, was accused in court on Wednesday of wrongly concealing details of Prince Charles's lobbying campaigns.
Grieve last year vetoed the disclosure of a set of "particularly frank" letters written by the prince to government ministers.Grieve last year vetoed the disclosure of a set of "particularly frank" letters written by the prince to government ministers.
On Wednesday, the Guardian launched a lawsuit to overturn the veto after gaining permission from the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, and two senior judges. The legal action to see the royal letters is the first of its kind to be mounted.On Wednesday, the Guardian launched a lawsuit to overturn the veto after gaining permission from the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, and two senior judges. The legal action to see the royal letters is the first of its kind to be mounted.
Opening the two-day case at the high court, Dinah Rose, QC for the Guardian, said Grieve's use of the veto was fundamentally flawed and legally unjustified.Opening the two-day case at the high court, Dinah Rose, QC for the Guardian, said Grieve's use of the veto was fundamentally flawed and legally unjustified.
The judicial review is the latest round in an eight-year battle by the newspaper to gain access to the prince's letters to politicians. His letters have been dubbed "black spider memos" because of the prince's handwriting.The judicial review is the latest round in an eight-year battle by the newspaper to gain access to the prince's letters to politicians. His letters have been dubbed "black spider memos" because of the prince's handwriting.
Disclosure of the letters would reveal how the prince has been secretly lobbying ministers with what Grieve says are his most deeply held personal views and beliefs. Disclosure of the letters would reveal how the prince has been secretly lobbying ministers with what Grieve says are his most deeply held personal views and beliefs. With the backing of the cabinet, Grieve had imposed the rarely used veto to block the publication of the letters, claiming it would seriously damage his future role as king.
With the backing of the cabinet, Grieve had imposed the rarely used veto to block the publication of the letters, claiming it would seriously damage his future role as king.
Grieve said there was a risk that the letters would reveal that the heir to the throne had disagreed with government policy and would undermine his political neutrality. For many years, the prince has been criticised for seeking to persuade ministers to change official policies even though he is unelected.Grieve said there was a risk that the letters would reveal that the heir to the throne had disagreed with government policy and would undermine his political neutrality. For many years, the prince has been criticised for seeking to persuade ministers to change official policies even though he is unelected.
The government has resisted disclosing the letters since 2005, when the Guardian lodged a freedom of information request to see his correspondence with ministers over a seven-month period.The government has resisted disclosing the letters since 2005, when the Guardian lodged a freedom of information request to see his correspondence with ministers over a seven-month period.
The paper won a key victory last September when three judges in a freedom of information tribunal ruled in its favour.The paper won a key victory last September when three judges in a freedom of information tribunal ruled in its favour.
Ordering the government to publish the prince's letters for the first time, the tribunal decided that the public had a right to know how the prince had been seeking to alter government policy.Ordering the government to publish the prince's letters for the first time, the tribunal decided that the public had a right to know how the prince had been seeking to alter government policy.
The tribunal believed that "it will generally be in the public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".The tribunal believed that "it will generally be in the public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".
But a month later, Grieve announced that he was overriding the tribunal's ruling and vetoing the publication of 27 letters between the prince and ministers.But a month later, Grieve announced that he was overriding the tribunal's ruling and vetoing the publication of 27 letters between the prince and ministers.
On Wednesday, Rose told the high court that Grieve could not simply veto disclosure of the letters using arguments that had previously been rejected by the "independent and impartial" tribunal.On Wednesday, Rose told the high court that Grieve could not simply veto disclosure of the letters using arguments that had previously been rejected by the "independent and impartial" tribunal.
She also argued that the government did not have the legal power under European law to veto the release of a significant portion of the letters which related to environmental matters.She also argued that the government did not have the legal power under European law to veto the release of a significant portion of the letters which related to environmental matters.
The case continues on Thursday, when government lawyers are due to defend the use of the veto. The case continues on Thursday, with government lawyers due to defend the use of the veto.When Grieve used the veto last year, he had argued that correspondence between the prince and the ministers helped to prepare him to be the king, but only if it was kept secret.
When Grieve used the veto last year, he had argued that correspondence between the prince and the ministers helped to prepare him to be the king, but only if it was kept secret.
"Without such confidentiality, both the Prince of Wales and ministers would feel seriously inhibited from exchanging views candidly and frankly, and this would damage the Prince of Wales's preparation for kingship," Grieve had said."Without such confidentiality, both the Prince of Wales and ministers would feel seriously inhibited from exchanging views candidly and frankly, and this would damage the Prince of Wales's preparation for kingship," Grieve had said.
He argued that it was important that the prince was "not considered by the public to favour one political party or another".He argued that it was important that the prince was "not considered by the public to favour one political party or another".
There was a risk that following the disclosure of the letters, the prince could forfeit his position of political neutrality and would be unable to "easily recover it when he is King", Grieve had said.There was a risk that following the disclosure of the letters, the prince could forfeit his position of political neutrality and would be unable to "easily recover it when he is King", Grieve had said.