‘A move by the government to block the release of letters from Prince of Wales to ministers are being challenged in the Court of Appeal.’
BBC News, 24th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Words such as “widow” removed from statutes while medieval treason laws and even rules on royal titles amended ahead of gay marriage.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The government has confirmed that republicanism is still punishable by life imprisonment and that it remains illegal to even ‘imagine’ overthrowing the Queen.’
The Independent, 13th December 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The legal battle over where the remains of Richard III should be buried has been adjourned at the High Court. A judicial review will decide whether the procedure that led to his bones being excavated in Leicester and the decision to reinter them at the city’s cathedral, was conducted correctly.’
BBC News, 26th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An “unseemly and undignified” legal battle over where the remains of the last Plantagenet king of England, Richard III, should be laid to rest resumes on Tuesday, 528 years after his death and a year after his skeleton was found under a Leicester car park. Richard’s remains are currently in a laboratory at Leicester University.’
The Guardian, 26th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Campaigners are to attempting to launch a legal challenge to the Christian coronation of future monarchs in an attack on the most powerful symbol of the union between church and state.”
The Guardian, 10th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd (R o.t.a) v. Secretary of State for Justice and others, Haddon-Cave J, 18 October 2013 (PCO), and on permission, 15 August 2013. I posted here on the original judgment giving the Plantagenet Alliance permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to re-bury Richard III in Leicester. At the time, the judge had made a full Protective Costs Order in favour of the Alliance, so that it would not have to pay costs if it lost. The judge had also ordered what he envisaged to be a short hearing to determine in what sum the Alliance’s costs should be capped. if it won.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The High Court has comprehensively rejected the government’s bid to overturn the grant of a protective costs order (PCO) in favour of campaigners for the reburial of King Richard III in York.”
Litigation Futures, 18th October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“There is a row about the bones of the late King Richard III. Or to be precise, where those bones should be reinterred. As is widely known, they were discovered, remarkably intact, buried beneath what is was now a car park for the Social Services Department for Leicester Council. It had previously been part of the graveyard of a Gray Friars Church, I believe, and Richard’s naked body was flung in to a grave after he had died defending his crown at the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. All the evidence, including the skeleton itself with its curvature of the spine (scoliosis, not a hunchback, by the way – a Tudor slur, possibly one of many), the manner and cause of death (see below) and now DNA tests via the line of Richard’s relatives which still survive, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the body is that of the King.”
Sovereign Chambers, 28th August 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“Whilst cases often raise issues of constitutional importance, seldom has the subject matter of a legal claim related to matters of such constitutional moment as that concerning the discovery of the mortal remains of Richard III.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 29th August 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“The judge gave the Allliance permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision about re-burial. But I question the result – does the Alliance really have a legal right to be consulted about where Richard III is to be re-buried?”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd August 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Distant relatives of Richard III have been granted permission for a judicial review of the decision to rebury the king’s remains in Leicester.”
BBC News, 16th August 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina (Evans) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 313
“Section 53(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 required the existence of reasonable grounds before a certificate could be given by an accountable person and if reasonable grounds did not exist the certificate was invalid and of no effect. Further, a certificate under section 53(2) could validly be issued with regard to environmental information.”
WLR Daily, 9th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A billionaire Saudi prince has lost a High Court fight with a Jordanian businesswoman.”
The Independent, 31st July 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“High court judges give the Guardian right to challenge cabinet move to keep secret so-called ‘black spider memos.’ ”
The Guardian, 25th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Administrative Court is the latest body to become involved in the on-going saga related to disclosure of the Prince of Wales’ correspondence with government departments. In the recent case of R. (Evans) v. Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin), the Guardian journalist Rob Evans challenged the legality of the government’s decision to veto disclosure of the relevant correspondence between Prince Charles and a range of government ministers. Disclosure of most of this material had been ordered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) by the Upper Tribunal, allowing an appeal from Evans against the earlier decision of the Information Commissioner that the correspondence sought could be withheld.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 22nd July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“In anticipation of the birth of the Royal baby, Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act in April 2013. It provides that in future the eldest child will be next in line of succession, whether it is a girl or a boy. The law will not come into force in time for the Royal birth, but the new baby when born will be next in line. This Blog post explains the background, and the difficulties involved in changing the rules of succession.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 15th July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024