Court Quashes “Unlawful” Attempt to Fool British People
The Appeal Court has quashed as unlawful a government attempt at an extraordinarily blatant attempt to fool the British people. The government has responded to the court ruling by stating that it will ask the Supreme Court to uphold its wish to pull wool over our eyes.
The Appeal Court overruled a High Court decision that had upheld a veto by Attorney General Dominic Grieve of an freedom of information tribunal decision requiring publication of letters from Charles Windsor to government ministers.
Grieve had had argued that publication would undermine support for monarchy by confirming that Windsor does use his feudal status to further undermine democracy by exercising undue influence on government policy.
Grieve said that “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 role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne he cannot easily recover it when he is king,”
Grieve argued that an apolitical monarch was a cornerstone of the unwritten British constitution. Therefore it was wrong to reveal that the next in line for monarch is not apolitical. It seems clear that he was saying better that the constitution be breached and the people fooled than that the feudal institution be undermined. Monarchy first, all else second. It is hard to find a more egregious example of monarchist contempt for democratic principles.
The Appeal Court was strongly critical of the government case. It said that Grieve “had no good reason for overriding the meticulous decision” of the tribunal that the letters should be published. It also called the original tribunal decision “an impressive piece of work”.
Judge John Dyson said Grieve could not issue the veto “merely because he disagrees with the decision” of the tribunal. The judge also commented that the Attorney General “could point to no error of law or fact in the [tribunal’s] decision”. None of the government departments affected had asked for an appeal against the tribunal ruling.
In light of the unequivocal comments of the appeal court questions will inevitably arise as too what persuaded the High Court to rule in favour of the veto.
The challenge to the government was made by the Guardian newspaper.