Nevertheless, R (On the
Application of Evans) v Attorney General1
considered the nature of the link between the sovereignty of Parliament and the
rule of law. The Evans case concerned a request put forward under the Freedom
of Information Act2
by Evans, a journalist, for letters written by Prince Charles to several
government departments. It was stated that the letters established persuading efforts
by the Prince, disobeying the rule that the monarch and their heirs would persist
political neutrality. Although it was ruled by the Upper Tribunal that the
letters should be publicised, the government, via the Attorney General, had an
opposing point of view, and issued a certificate under S53(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act. This resulted in a veto effect on the Upper Tribunal’s decision,
establishing an attempt by a court to release any information thought to be
inappropriate. Evans applied for a review by the judiciary of the certificate’s
insurance, however the Higher Court denied the application – the Court of Appeal
overturned this decision, and quashed the Attorney General’s certificate. The
ruling was that the Attorney General did not have “reasonable grounds” to come
to this decision. This case highlights that the courts are capable of behaving
in a well-developed and strong manner with regards to the enforcement of the
boundaries of the separation of powers, regardless of the words used by
parliament. Through this, Parliament have proven that they are prepared to take
a position that could potentially be controversial on the meaning behind
Parliament’s words. In this instance, the court is claimed to have ignored the statutory
intentions of Parliament.

1
2015 UKSC 21

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2
Freedom of Information Act 2000