Charles relies on rights law he despised to validate marriage
By Tom Baldwin and Frances Gibb February 24, 2005
TImes Online
Lord Chancellor announces that wedding is legal but lawyers still warn of challenge
THE legality of the Prince of Wales’s wedding plans were declared to be “beyond doubt” last night under a law that he once denounced as leading to “the stultification of human relationships”.
In an emergency parliamentary statement, the Lord Chancellor sought to quash fears of a gathering constitutional crisis over whether the Prince is allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced that the Government was satisfied that the wedding was legal in accordance with the Marriage Act of 1949. But, even as he dismissed the alternative views taken in the past as overcautious, lawyers insisted that the couple are still at risk of a legal challenge to the validity of the union and that the Government should clarify existing legislation.
The Lord Chancellor said: “We also note that the Human Rights Act has, since 2000, required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination. This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.”
The Lord Chancellor’s decision to cite the Human Rights Act in aid of the royal wedding is a sharp contrast to the spat between his predecessor and the Prince four years ago over the same piece of legislation.
In a June 2001 letter to Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Prince said: “The longer-term effect of the Human Rights Act will be to provide opportunities which . . . will only encourage people to take up causes which will make the pursuit of a sane, civilised and ordered existence ever more difficult.” He voiced dread about the development of an American-style personal injury culture that “can only lead, ultimately, to the stultification of human relationships, to an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, let alone the real fear of taking decisions that might lead to legal action”.
The Prince added: “Too little is being done to stem the remorseless obsession with rights without there being any corresponding requirement or obligation.” The letter was leaked in September 2002.
At least one government figure privately asked last night if, in view of the Prince’s own “human relationships”, he had since changed his mind about the Act.
Lord Falconer is among a group of ministers who harbour doubts about the long-term future of the monarchy, but has helped to clear the way for the Prince’s wedding. Publication of his advice came amid speculation that fresh legislation might be needed for the wedding — due to be held at Windsor Guildhall on April 8.
Lord Falconer said his statement had been issued “in the light of recent interest in the law surrounding royal marriages”. Aides emphasised later that they expected it to be the final word on the issue.
However, Sir Nicholas Lyell, QC, the former Attorney-General, suggested yesterday that the Lord Chancellor’s arguments were flawed. He said there was still a need for the Government to introduce a short Bill to clarify the legality of the forthcoming marriage.
“The Lord Chancellor’s statement at least clarifies the Government’s thinking, but I fear that responsible lawyers will still regard the argument as rather tenuous,” he said.
“The Human Rights Act, 1998 does help, but it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when the legality of the marriage of the Prince of Wales has to depend on that.”
David Pannick, QC, an adminstrative law expert, said yesterday that a legal challenge to the wedding would put the Prince in court where he would have to rely on the Act to defend his position. He said the law was still not clear. “It would be far better if the Government clarified this by legislation. If they can pass legislation to tackle suspect terrorists in four days, then there is no reason to think they can’t pass legislation on the validity of the marriage of the heir to the throne.”