The Guardian has lost its appeal over a court hearing which dealt with the Duke of Edinburgh’s will, as judges rule the newspaper’s call for media to be present would have caused a “storm” at a “hugely sensitive” time for the Queen.
The newspaper had brought a challenge at the Court of Appeal against a judge’s decision to exclude the press from a hearing in July 2021.
Lawyers for the Guardian argued last week that the entirely private hearing over whether the will should remain secret was the “most serious interference with open justice”.
Dismissing the appeal on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lady Justice King, said they could not see how the press could have been alerted to the fact the hearing was taking place “without risking the media storm that was feared”.
They added: “The hearing was at a hugely sensitive time for the Sovereign and her family, and those interests would not have been protected if there had been protracted hearings reported in the press rather than a single occasion on which full reasons for what had been decided were published.”
The Duke, the nation’s longest-serving consort, died aged 99 on April 9 last year, two months before he would have turned 100.
After the death of a senior member of the Royal family, it has been convention for more than a century that an application to seal their will is made to the president of the Family Division of the High Court.
This means the wills of senior members of the Royal family are not open to public inspection in the way a will would ordinarily be.
At last year’s hearing, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the Family Division, heard legal argument from lawyers representing the Duke’s estate and the Attorney General, who represents the public interest in such matters.
The Guardian challenged the decision to hold a hearing on an application to seal the will in private, arguing it was “disproportionate and unjustified”. There was no appeal against the decision to seal the will.
Dismissing the newspaper’s appeal, senior judges ruled that it was not a case where “fairness demanded that the media be notified of the hearing or asked to make submissions before judgment”.
**’Exceptional’ circumstances**
The judges also said the circumstances of the case were “exceptional”.
Sir Geoffrey and Dame Victoria added: “It is true that the law applies equally to the Royal family, but that does not mean that the law produces the same outcomes in all situations.
“These circumstances are, as we have said, exceptional.
“We are not sure that there is a specific public interest in knowing how the assets of the Royal family are distributed.
“A perceived lack of transparency might be a matter of legitimate public debate, but the (Non-Contentious Probate Rules) allow wills and their values to be concealed from the public gaze in some cases.
“The judge properly applied the statutory test in this case.”
Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, for Guardian News and Media, argued at last week’s hearing: “An entirely private hearing such as this is the most serious interference with open justice. It is an exceptional step that requires exceptional justification.
“In this case, (Sir Andrew) decided to take such an exceptional step without even inviting or permitting members of the media to make submissions about whether such a procedure was fair or justified.”
Lawyers for the Attorney General argued: “The attorney is uniquely well placed to assist the court because she can represent the general public interest free from any non-public interest influences.”
They argued the context of the situation was “exceptional because of the nature of the application” and that, quoting Sir Andrew, the practice of sealing royal wills had become a “convention that has now been in place for over a century”.
**Will to remain sealed for 90 years**
In their written submissions, the lawyers said Sir Andrew “committed no legal error” and “applied the correct principled approach to the issues”.
They said The Guardian must show that the judge’s conclusions were “wrong” and doing so would be a “difficult hurdle”.
In a ruling in October, Sir Andrew ordered that the Duke’s will was to remain sealed for 90 years and may only be opened in private even after that.
He said the ruling was published to make as much detail as possible public without “compromising the conventional privacy afforded to communications from the sovereign”.
The judge said it was in the public interest for him to make clear he had neither seen, nor been told anything of the contents of, Philip’s will, other than the date of its execution and the identity of the appointed executor.
Sir Andrew said any future judgments on applications to seal royal wills would remain closed, and therefore will not be made public.
I have no idea what is in the will but i can only imagine it’s something dodgy because it has to be sealed and the public aren’t allowed to see it so probably sending money to his 17 secret children or his secret child girlfriend.
“We are not sure that there is a specific public interest in knowing how the assets of the Royal family are distributed”
Now that is some top tier mental gymnastics from a senior judge
The establishment will as always protect itself
need to remove the entire royal establishment and use the money to offset the nation’s increased cost of living
When the revolution comes, after we get done with Parliament, judges have to be pretty near the top of the list to be replaced. They are corrupt as fuck and they never hold power to account.
I think replace them with law students to start with, and then get some people from some more diverse backgrounds trained up and in there. Enemies of the people indeed.
Its to keep his bastards out of the public eye.
Good, they have no right to be there. However as public figure heads the results should be made public
I remember a friend interning at Reuters in early 2000s calling me saying there’d been a ban on any newspaper speculating where Prince Harry’s ginger hair and square jaw came from until he hit 21. We’d always wondered why the press seemed unable to put 2 and 2 together…
It’s not a secret that the royal family are inordinately rich, what exact purpose would publicizing the will really have? It doesn’t matter which specific people hold how much cash because the answer would simplify to “too few” and “too much” which we already know.
Honestly it’s probs because his will is no one’s business but those who are in it.
​
Even if it’s the Royal Family, some bloke’s will is hardly anyone’s business unless you’re specifically part of that will.
What I really want to know is, how much was the judge paid??
It’s slightly annoying that today’s infants grandkids will know all about the mistress he gave money to.
They’re clearly trying to hide how obscenely wealthy they are by doing this. The monarchy seems more and more aware how unpopular it is and during a major cost of living crisis, how unbearably out of touch and unnecessary it looks
I have no idea if there’s any logical reason why it should be otherwise. These are private assets and your will wouldn’t be public knowledge. Therefore, I see no reason why anyone would object to another citizen recieving the same privacy.
>It is true that the law applies equally to the Royal family, but that does not mean that the law produces the same outcomes in all situations
Not once have they ever cared about the law not producing equal outcomes. Until now.
[removed]
BUT THE WOYALS WERE GIVEN TO US BY GOD LEAVE THEM ALONE YOU WOKE BULLIES
It’s because they will not be paying any inheritance taxes on a metric fuck ton of money.
What are they hiding? It’s clear there are some rather nasty surprises that they’re trying to keep contained.
Since so much of the money being distributed through this will has come from UK taxpayers then surely we should be allowed to see where it is going? If you want 100% privacy stop taking money from the pockets of taxpayers who are struggling to feed their children!
Hats off for trying but… in all honesty… I’m not sure I actually want to know… because, sometimes, reality is a dosh best served silent.
23 comments
The Guardian has lost its appeal over a court hearing which dealt with the Duke of Edinburgh’s will, as judges rule the newspaper’s call for media to be present would have caused a “storm” at a “hugely sensitive” time for the Queen.
The newspaper had brought a challenge at the Court of Appeal against a judge’s decision to exclude the press from a hearing in July 2021.
Lawyers for the Guardian argued last week that the entirely private hearing over whether the will should remain secret was the “most serious interference with open justice”.
Dismissing the appeal on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lady Justice King, said they could not see how the press could have been alerted to the fact the hearing was taking place “without risking the media storm that was feared”.
They added: “The hearing was at a hugely sensitive time for the Sovereign and her family, and those interests would not have been protected if there had been protracted hearings reported in the press rather than a single occasion on which full reasons for what had been decided were published.”
The Duke, the nation’s longest-serving consort, died aged 99 on April 9 last year, two months before he would have turned 100.
After the death of a senior member of the Royal family, it has been convention for more than a century that an application to seal their will is made to the president of the Family Division of the High Court.
This means the wills of senior members of the Royal family are not open to public inspection in the way a will would ordinarily be.
At last year’s hearing, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the Family Division, heard legal argument from lawyers representing the Duke’s estate and the Attorney General, who represents the public interest in such matters.
The Guardian challenged the decision to hold a hearing on an application to seal the will in private, arguing it was “disproportionate and unjustified”. There was no appeal against the decision to seal the will.
Dismissing the newspaper’s appeal, senior judges ruled that it was not a case where “fairness demanded that the media be notified of the hearing or asked to make submissions before judgment”.
**’Exceptional’ circumstances**
The judges also said the circumstances of the case were “exceptional”.
Sir Geoffrey and Dame Victoria added: “It is true that the law applies equally to the Royal family, but that does not mean that the law produces the same outcomes in all situations.
“These circumstances are, as we have said, exceptional.
“We are not sure that there is a specific public interest in knowing how the assets of the Royal family are distributed.
“A perceived lack of transparency might be a matter of legitimate public debate, but the (Non-Contentious Probate Rules) allow wills and their values to be concealed from the public gaze in some cases.
“The judge properly applied the statutory test in this case.”
Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, for Guardian News and Media, argued at last week’s hearing: “An entirely private hearing such as this is the most serious interference with open justice. It is an exceptional step that requires exceptional justification.
“In this case, (Sir Andrew) decided to take such an exceptional step without even inviting or permitting members of the media to make submissions about whether such a procedure was fair or justified.”
Lawyers for the Attorney General argued: “The attorney is uniquely well placed to assist the court because she can represent the general public interest free from any non-public interest influences.”
They argued the context of the situation was “exceptional because of the nature of the application” and that, quoting Sir Andrew, the practice of sealing royal wills had become a “convention that has now been in place for over a century”.
**Will to remain sealed for 90 years**
In their written submissions, the lawyers said Sir Andrew “committed no legal error” and “applied the correct principled approach to the issues”.
They said The Guardian must show that the judge’s conclusions were “wrong” and doing so would be a “difficult hurdle”.
In a ruling in October, Sir Andrew ordered that the Duke’s will was to remain sealed for 90 years and may only be opened in private even after that.
He said the ruling was published to make as much detail as possible public without “compromising the conventional privacy afforded to communications from the sovereign”.
The judge said it was in the public interest for him to make clear he had neither seen, nor been told anything of the contents of, Philip’s will, other than the date of its execution and the identity of the appointed executor.
Sir Andrew said any future judgments on applications to seal royal wills would remain closed, and therefore will not be made public.
I have no idea what is in the will but i can only imagine it’s something dodgy because it has to be sealed and the public aren’t allowed to see it so probably sending money to his 17 secret children or his secret child girlfriend.
“We are not sure that there is a specific public interest in knowing how the assets of the Royal family are distributed”
Now that is some top tier mental gymnastics from a senior judge
The establishment will as always protect itself
need to remove the entire royal establishment and use the money to offset the nation’s increased cost of living
[*Re the Will of his late Royal Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh*](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1081.html) [2022] EWCA Civ 1081 – full judgment.
When the revolution comes, after we get done with Parliament, judges have to be pretty near the top of the list to be replaced. They are corrupt as fuck and they never hold power to account.
I think replace them with law students to start with, and then get some people from some more diverse backgrounds trained up and in there. Enemies of the people indeed.
Its to keep his bastards out of the public eye.
Good, they have no right to be there. However as public figure heads the results should be made public
I remember a friend interning at Reuters in early 2000s calling me saying there’d been a ban on any newspaper speculating where Prince Harry’s ginger hair and square jaw came from until he hit 21. We’d always wondered why the press seemed unable to put 2 and 2 together…
It’s not a secret that the royal family are inordinately rich, what exact purpose would publicizing the will really have? It doesn’t matter which specific people hold how much cash because the answer would simplify to “too few” and “too much” which we already know.
Honestly it’s probs because his will is no one’s business but those who are in it.
​
Even if it’s the Royal Family, some bloke’s will is hardly anyone’s business unless you’re specifically part of that will.
What I really want to know is, how much was the judge paid??
It’s slightly annoying that today’s infants grandkids will know all about the mistress he gave money to.
They’re clearly trying to hide how obscenely wealthy they are by doing this. The monarchy seems more and more aware how unpopular it is and during a major cost of living crisis, how unbearably out of touch and unnecessary it looks
I have no idea if there’s any logical reason why it should be otherwise. These are private assets and your will wouldn’t be public knowledge. Therefore, I see no reason why anyone would object to another citizen recieving the same privacy.
>It is true that the law applies equally to the Royal family, but that does not mean that the law produces the same outcomes in all situations
Not once have they ever cared about the law not producing equal outcomes. Until now.
[removed]
BUT THE WOYALS WERE GIVEN TO US BY GOD LEAVE THEM ALONE YOU WOKE BULLIES
It’s because they will not be paying any inheritance taxes on a metric fuck ton of money.
What are they hiding? It’s clear there are some rather nasty surprises that they’re trying to keep contained.
Since so much of the money being distributed through this will has come from UK taxpayers then surely we should be allowed to see where it is going? If you want 100% privacy stop taking money from the pockets of taxpayers who are struggling to feed their children!
Hats off for trying but… in all honesty… I’m not sure I actually want to know… because, sometimes, reality is a dosh best served silent.
surprisedpikachu.jpg