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/uk/2013/may/09/government-lawyers-prince-charles-letters
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Government lawyers defend decision to keep Prince Charles's letters secret | Government lawyers defend decision to keep Prince Charles's letters secret |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Government lawyers have defended a decision by the attorney general to keep secret Prince Charles's lobbying of politicians. | |
| They told the high court that Dominic Grieve was entitled to veto the publication of the prince's letters to government ministers. | |
| The lawyers urged the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges to reject a legal challenge by the Guardian to see the letters. | |
| Jonathan Swift, the government's QC, said on Thursday Grieve had acted properly when he kept the letters concealed. | |
| For eight years, the government has refused to disclose letters written by the prince to ministers following a freedom of information request by the Guardian. | For eight years, the government has refused to disclose letters written by the prince to ministers following a freedom of information request by the Guardian. |
| The heir to the throne has for many years been accused of secretly lobbying ministers to influence government policy. | |
| At the heart of the two-day high court hearing is a veto used last October by Grieve to override a verdict by a freedom of information tribunal. | At the heart of the two-day high court hearing is a veto used last October by Grieve to override a verdict by a freedom of information tribunal. |
| The tribunal had previously ruled that 27 letters exchanged between the prince and ministers in seven government departments over a seven-month period should be published. | The tribunal had previously ruled that 27 letters exchanged between the prince and ministers in seven government departments over a seven-month period should be published. |
| When he used the veto, Grieve argued that the publication of the "particularly frank" letters would seriously damage Charles's ability to perform his duties if he became king. | When he used the veto, Grieve argued that the publication of the "particularly frank" letters would seriously damage Charles's ability to perform his duties if he became king. |
| He said that if members of the public read the letters, they could believe that the heir to the throne had disagreed with the policies of Tony Blair's government and was not politically neutral. | He said that if members of the public read the letters, they could believe that the heir to the throne had disagreed with the policies of Tony Blair's government and was not politically neutral. |
| "It is highly important that he is not considered by the public to favour one political party or another," Grieve said. | "It is highly important that he is not considered by the public to favour one political party or another," Grieve said. |
| On Thursday, Swift told the high court that Grieve's use of the veto "was plainly a decision that was open to him". | On Thursday, Swift told the high court that Grieve's use of the veto "was plainly a decision that was open to him". |
| Calling on the judges to dismiss the Guardian's challenge, Swift said the attorney general had the legal power to decide that it was in the public interest to block the release of the letters. | Calling on the judges to dismiss the Guardian's challenge, Swift said the attorney general had the legal power to decide that it was in the public interest to block the release of the letters. |
| "This is not a matter on which the court can or should attempt to second-guess [his] evaluation; rather, it is a matter on which he is entitled to form his own view," added Swift. | "This is not a matter on which the court can or should attempt to second-guess [his] evaluation; rather, it is a matter on which he is entitled to form his own view," added Swift. |
| Dinah Rose, the Guardian's QC, had earlier argued that Grieve could not override the tribunal's verdict simply because he disagreed with its conclusion. | Dinah Rose, the Guardian's QC, had earlier argued that Grieve could not override the tribunal's verdict simply because he disagreed with its conclusion. |
| Judge and his two colleagues are to publish their judgment at a later date. | Judge and his two colleagues are to publish their judgment at a later date. |
| guardian.co.uk today is our daily snapshot of the top news stories, sent to your inbox at 8am | guardian.co.uk today is our daily snapshot of the top news stories, sent to your inbox at 8am |