Constitutional Conventions and the Prince of Wales

Adam Perry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) held in Evans v Information Commissioner that certain correspondence between Prince Charles and government officials must be disclosed under freedom of information legislation. Much of the judgment was devoted to a discussion of the constitutional conventions applicable to Prince Charles, and the case provides a useful example of how conventions and laws can interact. In this note, I argue that the Upper Tribunal misunderstood how conventions are distinguished from one another, and misapplied the test for the identification of conventions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1119-1128
Number of pages10
JournalModern Law Review
Volume76
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

freedom of information
chamber
appeal
legislation
Law

Keywords

  • constitutional conventions
  • Prince of Wales
  • freedom of information
  • norms

Cite this

Constitutional Conventions and the Prince of Wales. / Perry, Adam.

In: Modern Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 6, 11.2013, p. 1119-1128.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Perry, Adam. / Constitutional Conventions and the Prince of Wales. In: Modern Law Review. 2013 ; Vol. 76, No. 6. pp. 1119-1128.
@article{98699223682e4c628c80105c066eb013,
title = "Constitutional Conventions and the Prince of Wales",
abstract = "The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) held in Evans v Information Commissioner that certain correspondence between Prince Charles and government officials must be disclosed under freedom of information legislation. Much of the judgment was devoted to a discussion of the constitutional conventions applicable to Prince Charles, and the case provides a useful example of how conventions and laws can interact. In this note, I argue that the Upper Tribunal misunderstood how conventions are distinguished from one another, and misapplied the test for the identification of conventions.",
keywords = "constitutional conventions, Prince of Wales, freedom of information, norms",
author = "Adam Perry",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12050",
language = "English",
volume = "76",
pages = "1119--1128",
journal = "Modern Law Review",
issn = "0026-7961",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Constitutional Conventions and the Prince of Wales

AU - Perry, Adam

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) held in Evans v Information Commissioner that certain correspondence between Prince Charles and government officials must be disclosed under freedom of information legislation. Much of the judgment was devoted to a discussion of the constitutional conventions applicable to Prince Charles, and the case provides a useful example of how conventions and laws can interact. In this note, I argue that the Upper Tribunal misunderstood how conventions are distinguished from one another, and misapplied the test for the identification of conventions.

AB - The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) held in Evans v Information Commissioner that certain correspondence between Prince Charles and government officials must be disclosed under freedom of information legislation. Much of the judgment was devoted to a discussion of the constitutional conventions applicable to Prince Charles, and the case provides a useful example of how conventions and laws can interact. In this note, I argue that the Upper Tribunal misunderstood how conventions are distinguished from one another, and misapplied the test for the identification of conventions.

KW - constitutional conventions

KW - Prince of Wales

KW - freedom of information

KW - norms

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12050

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12050

M3 - Article

VL - 76

SP - 1119

EP - 1128

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

SN - 0026-7961

IS - 6

ER -