Releasing Prince Charles' letters could be 'seriously damaging', AG says
Grieve rejects FOI request to protect political neutrality of future monarch
Attorney General Dominic Grieve has blocked the release of letters from the Prince of Wales to seven government departments on the grounds that it could be 'seriously damaging' to his future role as king.
The Upper Tribunal ruled last month in Evans v Information Commissioner and others [2012] UKUT 313 that requests for the disclosure of letters which could be described as 'advocacy correspondence' should be allowed.
Journalists at The Guardian had asked to see copies of the prince's letters to ministers over a seven-month period in 2004 and 2005.
Using his power under Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to over-rule the tribunal, Grieve said in his 'statement of reasons' that without confidentiality, 'both the Prince of Wales and ministers will feel seriously inhibited from exchanging views candidly and frankly, and this would damage the Prince of Wales' preparation for kingship.
'Indeed, it is difficult to see how the exchange of views of correspondence could continue at all without confidentiality.
'Also, the Prince of Wales is party-political neutral. Moreover, it is highly important that he is not considered by the public to favour one political party over another.'
The Attorney General went on: 'This risk will arise if, through these letters, the Prince of Wales was viewed by others as disagreeing with government policy.
'Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his future role as monarch, because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king.'
The Attorney General said that in this context confidentiality 'serves and promotes important public interests'.
He added that many of the letters in the FOI request reflected Prince Charles' 'most deeply-held personal views and beliefs' and were 'in many cases particularly frank'.
Following his decision, The Guardian announced on its website that it would be seeking to challenge the Attorney General's veto in the High Court on the grounds that he had acted unreasonably.