Constitutional Conventions and the P rince of W ales
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9197481 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Adam Perry (0000-0002-0910-870X, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 76 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 1119-1128 |
| Publication date | 2013-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern Law Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-7961 • E-ISSN: 1468-2230 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-2230.12050 |
| OpenAlex | W1483338914 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
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
Biology · Botany · Government (linguistics) · Identification (biology) · Law and economics · Legislation · Linguistics · Political science · Sociology · Test (biology) · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Ombudsman and Human Rights · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |