Evans v Attorney General (2015) concerned a dispute over disclosure of the so-called ‘black spider letters, correspondence written by the (then) Prince Charles to various government ministers.

Evans v Attorney General (2015) concerned a dispute over disclosure of the so-called ‘black spider letters, correspondence written by the (then) Prince Charles to various government ministers. TheSupreme Court’s decision, in this case, drew upon constitutional principles such as the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty (which we’ll learn about in later sessions). But Evans also raised issues of the constitutional convention, and we will focus on this aspect of the judgment for this seminar. Answer the following questions:

A) Provide a brief overview of the facts and litigation background in Evans (further detail is available at paras [1]-[50] of Lord Neuberger’s judgment if you need it)

B) Read the extracts of the Attorney General’s (AG) veto certificate set out at para [132] of LordMance’s judgment. Set out the three constitutional conventions the AG relied upon. How did the AG use these conventions to justify the non-disclosure of the letters?

C) Read the extracts of the earlier Upper Tribunal’s ruling set out in para [133]-[146] of LordMance’s judgment. Did the Tribunal find that the Prince’s letter-writing was covered by constitutional convention? Provide reasons. What ‘test’ did the Tribunal apply to help determine the existence and scope of the disputed convention? What do you think these passages demonstrate about the nature of constitutional conventions?

D) As we all know, the former Prince recently acceded to the throne and is now monarch. List the main constitutional conventions that will regulate the King’s conduct. What are the legal and political consequences if the King fails to abide by such conventions?