After nine years, Guardian fight to force publication of ‘black spider memos’ to government ministers may be nearing end

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

A nine-year battle to force the publication of a set of secret letters written by Prince Charles reaches the highest court in the UK next week.

The supreme court will consider whether the government was entitled to override a court and block the disclosure of letters sent by the prince to ministers in which he sought to influence official policies.

The government maintains that the content of the letters would cause constitutional difficulties and “seriously damage” Charles’s future role as king if they were published.

The two-day hearing in front of Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, and six senior judges starts on Monday.

Since 2005, the government, with the support of the prince, has resisted a freedom of information request by the Guardian for copies of the letters.

The court will decide whether the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, acted lawfully two years ago when he summarily blocked the publication of 27 letters between the prince and ministers over a seven-month period.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest As the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve overrode a court ruling and blocked the disclosure of Charles’s letters. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/Guardian

With the backing of the cabinet, Grieve said that if members of the public read the letters, they could think that the prince had disagreed with government policy when he wrote to ministers in seven Whitehall departments promoting his often “particularly frank” views.

He argued that this would undermine the prince’s ability to perform his duties if he became monarch because he would be unable to regain his position of political neutrality. It was vital to the preservation of the British constitution that the monarch was not seen to favour any political party or become involved in political controversy, he said.

Ministers have spent at least £275,000 in legal fees to prevent the disclosure of the letters which Grieve said contained the heir’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs”.

If the government loses the case, it will be the first time under the freedom of information act that the prince’s correspondence will be published.

In contrast with other royals, Charles has gained a reputation for being outspoken on political matters and is believed to regularly send private letters to ministers on matters he feels strongly about.

Earlier this week the Guardian cited a well-placed source who has known Charles for many years as saying the prince is ready to reshape the monarch’s role if he becomes king and make “heartfelt interventions” in national life, in contrast to the Queen’s taciturn discretion on public affairs.

The letters he is believed to have sent to ministers have been dubbed the “black spider memos” because of his scratchy handwriting.

The prince says he aims to encourage public debate over vital issues, such as the environment, genetically modified crops, and planning, but that he avoids party political matters.

Prince Charles has spoken out before on issues such as the environment. Photograph: Chris Jackson/PA

Next week’s case could be the final stage in a succession of legal hearings over the letters.

In September 2012, three judges in a freedom of information tribunal ruled in the Guardian’s favour, and ordered the disclosure of the letters.

The judges concluded that it was in the overwhelming public interest to know “how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government”.

A month later, Grieve issued the veto, nullifying the tribunal’s decision and banning the publication of the letters, arguing that this was “an exceptional case”.

In March, the court of appeal, headed by Lord Dyson, the leading civil judge in England and Wales, quashed Grieve’s veto as unlawful.

Dyson ruled that Grieve could not overrule the tribunal “merely because he disagrees with” its verdict and that he had not acted reasonably.

Grieve had “no good reason for overriding the meticulous decision” of the tribunal, Dyson said.

Recently, Grieve’s use of the veto has been questioned by his one-time deputy, Edward Garnier, who was solicitor general between 2010 and 2012.

Interviewed on the BBC’s Law in Action programme earlier this month, Garnier said he was “attracted by the reasoning of the court of appeal. It goes with the grain of the [freedom of information] act.”

He said Grieve had not given good reasons for using the veto. “It may well be that, had he explained himself more fully, the court of appeal may have taken a different view. On the papers, he didn’t.”

The current attorney general, Jeremy Wright, has hired new QCs, James Eadie and Karen Steyn, to try to overturn the court of appeal’s verdict. Previously, the government has used Jonathan Swift QC.

The Guardian is represented by leading human rights QC Dinah Rose and two other barristers, Ben Jaffey and Aidan Eardley.

The prince’s correspondence between September 2004 and April 2005 involved ministers in the Cabinet Office, and the departments covering business, health, schools, environment, culture and Northern Ireland.

The supreme court is expected to give its judgment at a later date.