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 1 Version 2
Attorney general's block on Prince Charles's letters ruled 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 by the Court of Appeal.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.He was granted permission to appeal the latest ruling to the Supreme Court.
'Important principles''Important principles'
In September 2012 the Upper Tribunal, headed by a High Court judge, ruled that Mr Evans and the public were entitled to see the letters under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
The seven government departments concerned did not appeal the decision but a month later the attorney general intervened and imposed a veto under section 53 of the FOIA.
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".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. But 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.
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.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.""We will be pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court in order to protect the important principles which are at stake in this case."
Mr Evans has said he is fighting to shed more light "on the way the heir to the throne seeks to influence government ministers even though he holds no elected position".
The "advocacy correspondence" was described as letters the prince had written seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views.