to Poundbury, with Richards describing the letter as "...treated with great reverence and went straight to the top of the pile in the red box containing the minister's business for the day, over and above letters from other ministers and even cabinet papers." The appeal also heard evidence from Rodney Brazier, a professor of constitutional law at Manchester University, who said that Charles corresponds with ministers "to a much greater extent than his predecessors". Brazier said that the quantity of Charles's letter writing amounted to a "constitutional innovation" but that he considered the process to be part of "the apprenticeship convention" served by the heir to the throne, in which Charles educates himself in the nature of state affairs. The hearing was subsequently adjourned until 2011 for reasons that the panel "could not go into". 2010: FOI amendment The Freedom of Information Act was amended in 2010 to provide more protection over the communications with senior members of the British royal family, communications with the monarch, the heir to the throne and second in line to the throne would all be subject to an absolute exemption for twenty years or five years after the death of the individual, whichever occurs later. The changes were described as the "Prince Charles amendment" by Tony Wright MP. 2012: Successful Upper Tribunal appeal, Attorney General's veto In September 2012 the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the letters should be published, overturning the previous ruling of information commissioner from 2010. The appeals chamber found that the commissioner had given "insufficient weight to the public interest", when he chose to deny the disclosure of the letters, and found that it was in the public interest "for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government". The tribunal also found evidence of "Prince Charles using his access to government ministers, and no doubt considering himself entitled to use that access, in order to set up and drive forward charities and promote views, but not as part of his preparation for kingship...Ministers responded, and no doubt felt themselves obliged to respond, but again not as part of Prince Charles's preparation for kingship." The tribunal also ruled that "it was fundamental" that Charles's lobbying "cannot have constitutional status" and must not be protected from disclosure. In evidence given to the tribunal, Stephen Lamport, who was