Case No. UKUT-60-(AAC)

35. The Commissioner considers that the public interest inherent in this exemption will always be strong due to the importance of the principle behind LPP: safeguarding openness in all communications between client and lawyer to ensure access to full and frank legal advice which is turn fundamental to the administration of justice.36. However, the Commissioner does not consider that the public interest considerations need to be exceptional in order to overturn the strong public interest in maintaining the exemption. She notes that in the information tribunal decision of Crawford v Information Commissioner & Lincolnshire County Council (EA/2011/0145) it was held that there must be “clear, compelling and specific justification that at least equals the public interest in [maintaining the exemption]…” and in Bellamy v Information Commissioner & the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (EA/2005/0023) it was held that “….At least equally strong countervailing considerations would need to be adduced to override that inbuilt public interest.”37. The Commissioner has therefore attached appropriate weight to the view that there is a significant public interest in not undermining the ability of a public authority to freely seek and receive frank legal advice in future. She considers that freely seeking and obtaining frank legal advice is crucial to a public authority’s ability to make informed and legally supported decisions.38. The Commissioner also accepts that there is a need for confidentiality between lawyers and their clients so that advice can be given freely without fear of intrusion.39. Having considered the legal advice, she notes that it relates to what the CPS can and cannot compel the Sovereign to do in terms of calling her as a witness in court proceedings. She accepts that the CPS has the right to take legal advice on this issue.40. Additionally, the Commissioner notes that the CPS has confirmed that it considers that the legal note is still current. She considers that this is a strong argument in favour of maintaining the exemption.41. However, the Commissioner notes that the legal note is 17 years old. In addition, she notes that it is general in nature and does not make any direct reference to the court proceedings in question.42. The Commissioner also gives weight to the fact that the CPS is the public authority entrusted with the prosecution of criminal offences. She considers that there is a strong public interest in understanding the advice which the CPS received in relation to compelling the Sovereign to appear as a witness in criminal proceedings which is still considered current. The Commissioner is not aware that the CPS has published a policy or any guidance on this issue.43. Furthermore, the Commissioner the notes the CPS’ points about transparency. She considers that the CPS is expected to be transparent about in its approach to criminal proceedings.44. The Commissioner also notes that the request is asking for information about the competency and compellability of the Sovereign to give evidence in court proceedings as opposed to asking for information about the Queen as an individual. The Commissioner considers that there is a strong public interest in this issue.45. As explained in paragraph 35, the Commissioner considers that the public interest inherent in this exemption will always be strong. However, she considers that in the circumstances this particular case,there is a stronger public interest in the public knowing about the competency and compellability regarding whether the Sovereign can be called as a witness in court proceedings.