High court judges give the Guardian right to challenge cabinet move to keep secret so-called 'black spider memos'

This article is more than 7 years old

This article is more than 7 years old

Three high court judges have given permission for an appeal to be mounted against a decision to conceal details of Prince Charles's lobbying campaigns.

The Guardian will seek to overturn a high court ruling this month that the prince's private efforts to influence public policies should remain secret.

Lord Judge, the lord chief justice of England and Wales, and two other judges have allowed the newspaper to appeal.

The appeal will be the latest stage in an eight-year battle by the newspaper to view a set of letters written by the prince to ministers in seven government departments over a nine-month period. It is due to be heard in the court of appeal later this year.

The cabinet has decided that the letters must remain hidden after deciding that they could undermine the public's perception of the prince's political neutrality.

Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, has said that if the letters were published, there was a risk that the heir to the throne would be "viewed by others as disagreeing with government policy".

He said: "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."

He added that the 27 letters between the prince and government ministers were "particularly frank" and contain his "most deeply held personal views and beliefs".

The prince has long been accused of seeking to change government policies from his unelected position by writing private letters that have become known as "black spider memos" because of his handwriting.

The battle over the letters started in 2005 when the Guardian submitted a freedom of information request for the correspondence.

The government fought the request but lost at a freedom of information tribunal last year.

The tribunal ordered the publication of the letters on the grounds that it was "in the public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".

A month later, however, Grieve, with cabinet backing, issued a little-used veto to block the publication.

Grieve decided that the letters "contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality".

The Guardian challenged the lawfulness of the veto, but lost in the high court this month when Lord Judge and the other judges ruled that Grieve had acted properly.