This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26544124

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Prince's letters secrecy 'unlawful' Attorney general's block on Prince Charles's letters ruled unlawful
(35 minutes later)
The attorney general's refusal to let the public see letters the Prince of Wales wrote to UK ministers has been ruled unlawful. The attorney general's refusal to let the public see letters the Prince of Wales wrote to UK ministers has been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal.
Guardian journalist Rob Evans had challenged Dominic Grieve's decision to veto a High Court tribunal ruling in favour of allowing their publication.Guardian journalist Rob Evans had challenged Dominic Grieve's decision to veto a High Court tribunal ruling in favour of allowing their publication.
Mr Grieve argued that releasing the letters would undermine the principle of the heir being politically neutral.Mr Grieve argued that releasing the letters would undermine the principle of the heir being politically neutral.
He was granted permission to appeal the latest ruling to the Supreme Court.
'Important principles'
Mr Grieve had said the departments were legally entitled to refuse disclosure because the correspondence was part of the prince's "preparation for becoming king".
But Mr Evans said he had acted unlawfully in blocking publication by issuing a certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the certificate should be quashed because Mr Grieve had "no good reason" for overriding the decision of the tribunal and he had acted in a way which was incompatible with European law.
Responding to their verdict, a spokesman for Mr Grieve said: "We are very disappointed by the decision of the court.
"We will be pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court in order to protect the important principles which are at stake in this case."