article_snippet: Clarence House yesterday expressed Clarence House 'disappointment' that High Court ruled Attorney General had acted unlawfully in using a veto to block publication of Charles' so-called 'black spider' memos.
article_snippet: In 2012, however, the Attorney General employed a rarely-used ministerial veto to block publication under Section 53 of the FOI Act.
article_snippet: a rarely-used ministerial veto to block publication under Section 53 of the FOI Act was challenged by The Guardian in the Supreme Court which ruled, by a majority of five to two, that the government did not have a right to overrule a decision taken by the courts.
article_snippet: The seven Supreme Court judges made The seven Supreme Court judges ruling on two legal points.
article_snippet: One was whether Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General in 2012, was right to issue a Section 53 certificate under the Freedom of Information Act, effectively blocking publication of the letters.
article_snippet: Lord Neuberger, the court president, said Supreme Court had already rejected Mr Grieve’s arguments that Mr Grieve
article_snippet: Mr Grieve’s said that it was not lawful for ‘a member of the executive to overrule a judicial decision simply because Mr Grieve’s disagrees with a judicial decision’.
article_snippet: Four other judges agreed that the letters should be published but Lord Hughes and Lord Wilson disagreed.
article_snippet: Lord Wilson said the Supreme Court judges had ignored the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
highlights_snippet: Attorney General made a final attempt to block release of Charles' letters .
  
highlights_snippet: High Court wanted release but Government appealed to High Court .
  