Constitutional Conventions and the P rince of W ales

The U pper T ribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) held in Evans v Information Commissioner that certain correspondence between P rince C harles 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 P rince C harles, and the case provides a useful example of how conventions and laws can interact. In this note, I argue that the U pper T ribunal misunderstood how conventions are distinguished from one another, and misapplied the test for the identification of conventions.