Download original attachment
(PDF file)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed Forces Act'.
 
From: DCDS Pers Secretariat 
Zone D, Sixth Floor, 
        
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE       
Main Building, London, SW1A 2HB. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Our Reference:  
Chand Bakshi 
13-11-2009-172510-001 Bakshi 
[REQUEST-11904-
 
[email address]] 
Date: 15 September 2010 
 
 
 
 
Dear Chand Bakshi, 
 
We have recently conducted a review of unanswered Freedom of Information requests 
submitted through the What do They know website and have noticed that there remains a 
request that you have submitted which appears not to have been answered.  Please accept 
our sincere apologies for this oversight.  We have considered your correspondence to be a 
request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You 
asked the following questions: 
 
 “Question 
1 
 
a. 
You stated all members of the armed services are subject to the  Armed 
forces Act of 2006.  Does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting 
members of the Royal Family serving in the military from any part of the Armed 
Services Act?  If so please provide copies. 
 
b. 
Does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting members of 
the Royal Family serving in the military from court-martial?  If so please provide 
copies. 
 
c. 
With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example  
Prince Harry in Afghanistan) does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation 
exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the military from prosecution 
for war crimes if any were to be committed?  If so please provide copies. 
 
d. 
Does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting 
members of the Royal Family serving in the military from being handed to the 
International Criminal Court?  If so please provide copies. 
 
e. 
Does the Ministry of Defence have any training manuals, guidelines, rules 
or other documentation produced for its personnel for use when dealing with 
members of the royal family serving in the military? 
 
 Question 
2 
 
Please provide copies of any internal memos or emails relating to the request Your 
ref:SP/08/04808 (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-001)” 
 
You maybe aware that The Armed Forces Act 2006, which established a single system of 
Service law across all three Services came into force on 31 October 2009. Prior to the 
implementation of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the three British Armed Services each 
operated a disciplinary system based on one of the three Service Discipline Acts that date 
back to the 1950s.  Under the 2006 Act, all Service personnel will be dealt with under a 
single system that applies in the same way to the personnel of all three Services, wherever 
they are in the world. 
 
The main aim of the 2006 Act is to support operational effectiveness, through: 
 
•  the establishment of a single system of Service law.  
 
•  a common range of offences capable of being heard summarily by 
commanding officers. 
 
•  a single Court Martial system, including the establishment of a Service 
Prosecuting Authority. 
 
There is no mechanism for exemptions to be sought against the Act and as both Princes 
William and Harry are fully integrated members of the Armed Forces they are each subject 
to its terms.  A complete copy of the Armed Forces Act 2006 can be found at:   
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/pdfs/ukpga_20060052_en.pdf 
 
You also asked for training manuals or guidance when dealing with members of the Royal 
Family, to which the answer is that there are none.  Our armed forces are currently 
deployed in the most demanding areas of conflict and   their dedication to duty and loyalty 
to The Queen, her heirs and successors is the foundation on which their willingness to 
serve is based.  It is not considered necessary to provide separate written instructions but 
they will be advised through  the chain of command, normally by way of an oral 
instruction, how members of the Royal Family are to be addressed when fulfilling a Royal 
engagement, such as when acting in an Honorary Appointment.  Both Prince William and 
Prince Harry are serving officers so an Honorary Appointment will not carry a rank beyond 
that what they currently hold.  However, they will be received as The Queen’s 
representative and respected as such.  This will involve meeting as many serving personnel 
and their families as time will permit and they will be formerly escorted by the Station 
Commander or his representative throughout. 
 
In response to Question 2, please find attached all documentation relating to your earlier 
request for information.  However, the information being provided with falls within the 
scope of Section 40 – Personal Information of the Freedom of Information Act.  Therefore, 
the personal details of junior officials have been removed. 
 
I hope that this information is helpful. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Chief of Defence Staff Personnel and Training 
 
 
 
The information supplied to you continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and 
Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any non-
commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other 
reuse, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright 
holder. Most documents supplied by the Ministry of Defence will have been produced by 
 
government officials and will be Crown Copyright. You can find details on the 
arrangements for re-using Crown Copyright from the Office of Public Sector Information 
at:  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm. Information you receive which is not 
subject to Crown Copyright continues to be protected by the copyright of the person, or 
organisation, from which the information originated. You must ensure that you gain their 
permission before reproducing any third party (non Crown Copyright) information. 
 
If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the 
handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal 
resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an 
independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 1st Floor, 
Zone N, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). 
Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of 
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end. 
 
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of 
Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your 
case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role 
and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, 
http://www.ico.gov.uk. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 1 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 15 May 2009 10:02 
To:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: FW: members of the Royal Family serving in the military PF 14-05-
2009-110651-001 Bakshi 
 
 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CORRESPONDENCE - TO BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY 
  
Dear XXXXXXXXXX, 
  
The Freedom of Information (FOI) request for information (RFI) below has 
been placed with you, but not confirmed on the Access to Information Toolkit 
(AIT).  [insert details here, of which area should answer which part of the 
RFI, if it has been broken into different sections] 
  
Please acknowledge within two working days  that you are the appropriate 
area to respond, or lead, and we will confirm this on AIT.  You should 
respond to the requester within twenty working days of the date the request 
was made.  If you consider another area is more appropriate to respond or 
lead, then please approach them, also within two working days.  Please 
engage with the FOI Helpdesk at all times when you are looking to place a 
request elsewhere.  The FOI Helpdesk will be pleased to assist during this 
process. 
  
This request will be automatically allocated to your area, on AIT, after 
three working days, if the FOI Helpdesk receives no receipt or evidence of 
action to place the request elsewhere. 
  
If you are copied into this email, you may be a relevant contributor to the 
response and you should liaise with the lead respondent. 
  
This process is set out to maximise the amount of time to find information 
and respond, when this request has been placed with the appropriate subject 
matter expert. 
  
Lastly, please see further headline guidance on FOI correspondence at the 
attached, or detailed guidance (including model answers) at  
  
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/Admin/RespondToReques
tsForInformation/.  
  
If you have any concerns, or require any assistance with FOI, please contact 
CIO-Access Operations, we are here to help. 
  
Best regards 
  
CIO-Access 
Freedom of Information Helpdesk 
Telephone: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email: [MOD request email] 
AIT: http://aitportal/ 
-----Original Message----- 
From: [Unknown] XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 13 May 2009 19:02 
To: CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER) 
Subject: FW: members of the Royal Family serving in the military PF 14-05-
2009-110651-001 Bakshi 
 
 
------------------------------------------- 
From: Chand Bakshi[SMTP:[email address]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:59:56 PM 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Are members of the Royal Family 
serving in the military subject to the Armed Forces Act 
Auto forwarded by a Rule 
 
     Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to know to what extent the members 
     of the Royal Family serving in the Armed forces are subject to the 
     law. In particular I would like to know if the they are 
 
     1) Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
     2) Could they be court court-martialed? For example a General 
     Court-Martial? 
 
     3) With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example 
     Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable to prosecution for war 
     crimes if any were to be committed? 
 
     4) Are the any laws prohibiting the U.K. handing them over to the 
     International Criminal Court? 
 
     5) Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these 
     possibilities or produced materials for their staff and soldiers in 
     dealing with royals in the military? If yes please provide copies 
     of any meetings , training manuals etc. 
 
     Yours faithfully, 
 
     Chand Bakshi 
 
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be 
     published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: 
     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers 
 
     Is [MOD request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information 
     requests to Ministry of Defence? If so please contact us using this 
     form: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact 
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 2 
 
 
XXXXXXX, 
 
Thanks for your message – I am the main POC for referrals so it’s good your message and the 
referral form found its way to me. I will be sending it on to the Cabinet Office which now deals with 
first time Royal requests. I will then forward you any guidance they provide. 
 
Re: what to do since the request came through from “whatdotheyknow.com”, with respect to the 
response letter you send out, in the last paragraph, please ensure that you use Post titles and 
central telephone numbers/email addresses when sending out your response to requests coming 
in via this website. You may use our [email address] email address and use the 
switchboard number 020 7218 9000 or Info-Access tel no: 020 7218 4848. 
 
Re: claiming the case on the toolkit – don’t worry if you are unable to enter the case for a couple of 
days. Hopefully, XXXXXXXX will be back next week and can enter it. If not, please contact me and 
a colleague of mine who deals with AIT can enter it for you. 
Regards, 
 
XXXXXXXX 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel    XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax   XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 May 2009 10:19 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: FW: 20090520-U- FOI Referral Bakshi-Parly C1 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
 
Please see below.  Having wrote to XXXXXXX for help.  I have received an OOO.  Grateful if you 
could help in any way. 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 May 2009 10:17 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090520-U- FOI Referral Bakshi-Parly C1 
 
Good Morning XXXXXXXXXX 
 
I am not sure if this is for you but may be you can help as this is my first one! 
 
I am the POC for Royal FOI and believe that it is to be referred to the MOJ in the first instance.  I 
have a contact of XXXXXXXXXXXXX but I believe that he may have moved on. 
 
Anyway, please find attached a referral request. I would appreciate it if you could do something 
with it even if it is to advise who in your dept should be dealing with it. 
 
I am also advised that as the request came through “whatdotheyknow” then caution is to be 
exercised when sending holding replies as my email address could then be published.  Is this 
something you would forward as I complete? 
 
Finally, I am aware that I am to claim the case on the FOI Toolkit.  However, I do not have access 
and XXXXX XXXXX, who does, is off sick at the moment.  
 
Grateful for any help you can offer. 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 3 
 
 
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
Sent: 20 May 2009 12:07 
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 
Thanks for the ‘phone call. I have forwarded your email to xxxxxxxxxxxx in CLS, who deals 
generally with FoI requests. We will need to consider how far this comes within FoI. 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
MB XXXXXXXXX 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 20 May 2009 11:57 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
Good Morning  
 
Further to our earlier conversation please see below the questions as posed. 
 
To what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed forces are subject to the 
law. In particular would like to know if they are 
 
1.  Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
2. Could they be court-martialed? For example a General Court-Martial? 
 
3. With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example Prince Harry in Afghanistan) 
are they liable to prosecution for war crimes if any were to be committed? 
 
4. Are the any laws prohibiting the U.K. handing them over to the International Criminal Court? 
 
5. Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these possibilities or produced materials 
for their staff and soldiers in 
dealing with royals in the military? If yes please provide copies of any meetings, training manuals 
etc. 
 
I appreciate that is the simple questions that cover the widest answers but I am grateful for nay 
direction you may be able to ofer. 
 
Many thanks 
 
 
XXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 4 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 22 May 2009 10:21 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Bakshi Royal referral 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX, 
 
Cabinet Office has acknowledged receipt of your referral from Mr Bakshi. When ready, please 
send your draft response to me for forwarding to XXXXXXXXXX. Thanks. 
 
XXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXXXX 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 22 May 2009 09:18 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: Royal referral 
 
Thanks XXXXXXXXXX. Look forward to receiving the draft reply in due course. 
  
XXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXX 
FOI Team 
Cabinet Office 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXX 
-----Original Message----- 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 May 2009 11:53 
To: FOI Team - Private Office - 
Subject: Royal referral 
Dear Cabinet Office FOI Team, 
 
PSA Royal referral. Thanks. 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXX 
XXXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
The Cabinet Office computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded to secure the effective 
operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. 
  
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 5 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 27 May 2009 16:46 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Release-authorised: 20090520-U- FOI Referral Bakshi-Parly C1 
 
Dear CH, 
 
Please see the attached Royal FOI for the list.  Thank you. 
 
XXXXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Freedom of Information Operations Manager 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Information Access Team 
XXXXXXXXXX, MOD Main Building 
London 
  
External:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
DII email: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
Mil Tel:   XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Normal:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
ATTACHMENT 6 
ANNEX C – New requests – November 2006  
DCA Access to Information Central Clearing House  
Referral Form – New Requests - November 2006 
 
 
1/ Please complete this form as thoroughly as possible.  Referral forms must be used when referring cases 
to the Clearing House. 
 
2/ When e-mailing this form to the Clearing House, please copy in all relevant departmental contacts in the 
e-mail cc. field. 
 
3/ You should continue to process the request until a Clearing House case officer contacts you.  However, 
please do not issue a final response before agreement with the Clearing House. 
 
Referring department details and acknowledgement e-mail contacts
Name of department:  Ministry of Defence 
CIO-Access Ops XXXXXXXXXXX 
Departmental Case Ref:  14-05-2009-110651-001 Bakshi 
 
 
Timeframes
Date request received: 
14 May 09 
Deadline for response to applicant (including any 
12 Jun 09 
PIT extension already issued or due to be issued): 
 
Case details and analysis:
 
 
 
 
Name / organisation of applicant and exact wording 
Chand Bakshi 
of request: 
 
 
Would like to know to what extent the members 
of the Royal Family serving in the Armed forces are subject to the 
law. In particular would like to know if they are 
 
1.   Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
2. Could they be court court-martialed? For example a General 
Court-Martial? 
 
3. With some members having served in recent conflicts (for 
example Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable to prosecution 
for war crimes if any were to be committed? 
 
4. Are the any laws prohibiting the U.K. handing them over to the 
International Criminal Court? 
 
5. Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these 
possibilities or produced materials for their staff and soldiers in 
dealing with royals in the military? If yes please provide copies of 
any meetings, training manuals etc. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please give a detailed analysis of the request. 
A draft response will follow. 
You must provide information on: 
 
 
The Clearing House trigger is the Royal Household. 
•  Subject matter and sensitivities. 
 
•  What Clearing House triggers are engaged. 
There is not a prospect of using NCND. 
•  What information is held – please provide a 
 
sample with the referral form if possible. 
Media interest is high. 
• What exemptions you think may apply and 
 
why. 
 
•  Whether there is a prospect of using NCND. 
 
• Whether media interest in the response is 
 
likely. 
•  Any other factors you believe to be relevant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What case categorisation (1, 2, 3, or 4) 
4 
Do you need to consider the use of Section 23 or 
No 
does the department believe would be most 
24? 
suitable (see Clearing House toolkit para 
 
24) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Involvement of other government departments and/or NDPBs: 
 
 
 
 
Is this a suspected round robin request? 
No 
 
 
 
 
 
If not a suspected round robin, are any other government departments or NDPBs likely to be involved or 
have an interest in the request? 
 
 
 
 
If “Yes” or “possibly”, please state why and provide contact details for relevant departments where possible: 
  Department 1 
Department 2 
Department 3 
Name of Department   
 
 
   
 
 
Reasons for (possible) 
involvement: 
   
 
 
Contact details (if available): 
 
 
Contact details of lead departmental FOI practitioner
 
 
Please check if this 
is first point of 
contact for Clearing 
House 
 
 
Name:  
 
 
E – mail (check accuracy)::  
 
 
Telephone Number:   
 
   
 
 
Contact details of lead departmental policy official
 
 
Please check if this 
is first point of 
contact for Clearing 
House 
Name: XXXXXXXXX 
 
E – mail (check accuracy): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
X  
Telephone Number:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
   
 
 
Other key contact details (if applicable)
 
 
Please check if this 
is first point of 
contact for Clearing 
House 
Name and position:   
 
E – mail (check accuracy):  
 
 
Telephone Number:   
 
   
 
 
 
 
Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) Secretariat  
 
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
ATTACHM
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
ENT 7 
Main Building, Whitehall 
London, SW1A 2HB 
 
Telephone: 020 
7218 9000
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your 
 
Chand Bakshi 
reference: 
SMTP:REQUEST-11904-
Our 
SP/08/04/08 
[email address] 
reference: 
14-05-2009-110651-001 
Date: 
15 June 2009 
 
 
Dear Chand 
 
Many thanks for your correspondence dated 13 May 2009 which has been considered to 
be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You 
requested the following information: 
 
To what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed Forces are 
subject to the law.  In particular you would like to know if they are: 
 
a. 
Subject to the Armed forces Act of 2006 
 
b. 
Could they be court-martialled 
 
c. 
Are they liable to prosecution for war crimes if any were to be  
committed 
 
d. 
Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them over to the  
International Criminal Court 
 
e. 
Has the MOD held meetings to discuss these possibilities or produced  
materials for their staff and soldiers in dealing with royals in the military.  If 
yes please province copies of any meetings, training manuals etc. 
 
This letter is to inform you that the MOD holds some of the information relating to your 
request, but we believe the information may fall within the scope of the following qualified 
exemption:  Section 37 (Communications with Her Majesty etc, and honours).  Once we 
have identified this information there may be further exemptions that apply.  As such it is 
necessary for us to decide whether, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in 
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. 
 
The Freedom of Information Act requires us to respond to requests promptly, and in any 
case no later than 20 working days after receiving your request.  However, as you know, 
we are considering information relevant to your request against a qualified exemption, so 
we are permitted to extend the time take to respond for a reasonable period to allow for 
the conduct of a public interest test.  I regret to inform you that it has not yet been possible 
to complete the public interest test required in this instance.  We estimate that it will take  
 
 
 
 
an additional 20 working days to take a final decision on where the balance of public 
interest lies.  We therefore plan to let you have a response by 10 July 2009.  If it appears 
that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion we will let you know. 
 
If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the 
handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance.  If informal 
resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an 
independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, 
MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]).  Please note that 
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on 
which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end. 
 
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
Information Commissioner under the provision of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information 
Act.  Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the 
MOD internal review process has been completed.  Further details of the role and powers 
o the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner’s website, 
http://www.ico.gov.uk
 
Yours faithfully 
 
 
Original signed 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 8 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Chand Bakshi [mailto:[FOI #11904 email]]  
Sent: 15 June 2009 17:23 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Are members of the Royal 
Family serving in the military subject to the Armed Forces Act 
 
     Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
     Thank you for your response to my request. While you examine if my 
     request is exempt under Section 37(Communications with Her Majesty 
     etc, and honours) please be aware that I didn't request copies 
     actual communications between the MOD and the Royal Household. 
     Questions A to D only really needs a Yes or No answer. Question E 
     is also for materials produced and used by the MOD not between the 
     MOD and the Royal Household. I do not believe that these would be 
     exempt under Section 37 I will look forward to your next reply. 
 
     Yours sincerely, 
 
     Chand Bakshi 
 
     -----Original Message----- 
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
     Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) Secretariat 
 
     MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
 
     XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
     Main Building, Whitehall 
 
     London, SW1A 2HB 
 
      
 
      
 
     Telephone: 
 
     020 7218 9000 
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
     Chand Bakshi 
 
     SMTP:[email address] 
 
     Your reference: 
 
      
 
     Our reference: 
 
     SP/08/04/08 
 
     14-05-2009-110651-001 
 
     Date: 
 
     15 June 2009 
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
     Dear Chand 
 
      
 
     Many thanks for your correspondence dated 13 May 2009 which has 
     been considered to be a request for information in accordance with 
     the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You requested the following 
     information: 
 
      
 
     To what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed 
     Forces are subject to the law. In particular you would like to know 
     if they are: 
 
      
 
     a. Subject to the Armed forces Act of 2006 
 
      
 
     b. Could they be court-martialled 
 
      
 
     c. Are they liable to prosecution for war crimes if any were to be 
 
     committed 
 
      
 
     d. Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them over to the 
 
     International Criminal Court 
 
      
 
     e. Has the MOD held meetings to discuss these possibilities or 
     produced 
 
     materials for their staff and soldiers in dealing with royals in 
     the military. If yes please province copies of any meetings, 
     training manuals etc. 
 
      
 
     This letter is to inform you that the MOD holds some of the 
     information relating to your request, but we believe the 
     information may fall within the scope of the following qualified 
     exemption: Section 37 (Communications with Her Majesty etc, and 
     honours). Once we have identified this information there may be 
     further exemptions that apply. As such it is necessary for us to 
     decide whether, in all circumstances of the case, the public 
     interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest 
     in disclosure. 
 
      
 
     The Freedom of Information Act requires us to respond to requests 
     promptly, and in any case no later than 20 working days after 
     receiving your request. However, as you know, we are considering 
     information relevant to your request against a qualified exemption, 
     so we are permitted to extend the time take to respond for a 
     reasonable period to allow for the conduct of a public interest 
     test. I regret to inform you that it has not yet been possible to 
     complete the public interest test required in this instance. We 
     estimate that it will take 
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
      
 
     an additional 20 working days to take a final decision on where the 
     balance of public interest lies. We therefore plan to let you have 
     a response by 10 July 2009. If it appears that it will take longer 
     than this to reach a conclusion we will let you know. 
 
      
 
     If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain 
     about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should 
     contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not 
     possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an 
     independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate 
     Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB 
     (e-mail [email address]). Please note that any request for an 
     internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on 
     which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end. 
 
      
 
     If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may 
     take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the 
     provision of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please 
     note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your 
     case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. 
     Further details of the role and powers o the Information 
     Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, 
     http://www.ico.gov.uk <http://www.ico.gov.uk/> 
 
      
 
     Yours faithfully 
 
      
 
      
 
     Original signed 
 
      
 
      
 
     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Please use this email address for all replies to this request: 
     [FOI #11904 email] 
 
     Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be 
     published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: 
     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers 
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 9 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 17 June 2009 16:45 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
If you are around tomorrow am would it help to spend 10 minutes on this?  Happy to come to you. 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 17 June 2009 08:25 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
Thanks XXXXXXXXXXX 
 
It is fair to say, then, that point 5 could be answered as none? 
 
Your assistance is greatly appreciated while I continue to gain knowledge and experience with FOI. 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 16 June 2009 18:41 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
XXXXXXXX, 
 
In respect of points 1 to 4 of the request I suggest the following  
 
“Unfortunately your request as currently formulated on points 1 to 4 is not strictly a request for 
information held by the Ministry of Defence, but rather a request for the provision of a legal opinion 
which the Department does not hold.  You should also note that even if this information was held, it 
would be likely to be covered by the exemption at section 42 of the Act (Legal Professional 
Privilege), subject to the exercise of a public interest balancing test.” 
 
Happy to discuss 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 16 June 2009 10:08 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: FW: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
Morning XXXXXXXXXXX 
  
I understand that you are looking into this FOI for me.  As it is now time for an update letter, I 
wonder if you advise on progress and estimated timelines to complete.  I appreciate that the 
questions are sufficient vague and that the answers will require some significant staffwork to 
complete. 
  
Many thanks 
  
  
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 May 2009 12:07 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
XXXXXXXX 
 
Thanks for the ‘phone call. I have forwarded your email to XXXXXXXXX in CLS, who deals 
generally with FoI requests. We will need to consider how far this comes within FoI. 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
MB XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 May 2009 11:57 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090520-U-FOI REquest (Royal)-Parly C1 
 
Good Morning  
 
Further to our earlier conversation please see below the questions as posed. 
 
To what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed forces are subject to the 
law. In particular would like to know if they are 
 
1.  Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
2. Could they be court-martialed? For example a General Court-Martial? 
 
3. With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example Prince Harry in Afghanistan) 
are they liable to prosecution for war crimes if any were to be committed? 
 
4. Are the any laws prohibiting the U.K. handing them over to the International Criminal Court? 
 
5. Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these possibilities or produced materials 
for their staff and soldiers in 
dealing with royals in the military? If yes please provide copies of any meetings, training manuals 
etc. 
 
I appreciate that is the simple questions that cover the widest answers but I am grateful for nay 
direction you may be able to ofer. 
 
Many thanks 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 10 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 22 June 2009 12:27 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090618-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
Thanks XXXXXXXX.  Will let you have our input in the next day or so. 
 
Regards, 
  
XXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Land Forces Secretariat 
Mil: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Civ: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 22 June 2009 11:31 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090618-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
 
The request has come through Whatdotheyknow.com. – Chand Bakshi.  Reference No:  14-05-
2009-110651-001 
 
From this you will tell that it is already late.  It has been with CLS here and the legal eagles have 
decided that it should go out to the single services for direction as nothing is held with them and 
point 1, they claim, calls for a legal opinion. 
 
As it is late could I push for a response by cop 25 June 09. 
 
Many thanks 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 22 June 2009 11:00 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: FW: 20090618-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXXXXX, 
 
Further to below I would be grateful if you could tell me when you require this by, and some more 
detail on the request itself i.e. who has asked the question and the reference. 
 
Regards, 
  
XXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXX 
Land Forces Secretariat 
Mil: XXXXXXXXX 
Civ: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
From: XXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 18 June 2009 16:42 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090618-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXX, 
 
I will look into this on behalf of the Army.   
 
Can you please let us know when you would like our input.   
 
It would also be useful to know who has asked the question and what the reference is. 
 
Many thanks, 
  
XXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 
Land Forces Secretariat 
Mil: XXXXXXXX 
Civ: XXXXXXXXX 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 18 June 2009 14:00 
To: XXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090618-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
Good Afternoon 
 
I am currently dealing with an FOI request in respect of members of the Royal family serving in the 
forces.  While the majority of it I can answer with CLS here.  I would be grateful if you could check 
with each of your legal people the response to these: 
 
To what extent the members of the Royal family serving the Armed Forces are subject to the law.  
In particular are they: 
 
          Subject to the Armed forces Act 2006 
 
Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these possibilities or produced 
materials for their staff and soldiers in dealing with Royals in the military?  If yes please 
provide copies of any meetings, training manuals etc. 
 
 
Not really sure if the response is going to be very clear as it will require a legal opinion but if there 
is anything in a cupboard somewhere then grateful for any help. 
 
Kind regards 
 
  
 
XXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 11
 
From: Mr XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 Ministry of Defence 
Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB 
Telephone 020 7218 9000  
 
Deputy Chief Of Defence Staff (Personnel) - Secretariat 
 
SP 01.02.04.03 
14-05-2009-110651-001 Bakshi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chand Bakshi 
[email address]   
20 July 2009 
 
 
Dear Chand 
 
Thank you for your e-mail of 13 May 2009 which has been considered to be a request for 
information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I am sorry for the 
delay in responding.  You requested the following information: 
 
‘Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed 
Forces Act.  In particular, you would like to know if they are: 
 
1. 
Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
2. 
Could they be court-martialled?  For example a General Court 
Martial? 
 
3. 
With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example  
Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable for prosecution for war crimes if 
any were to be committed? 
 
4. 
Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them over to the  
International Criminal Court? 
 
5. 
Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these  
possibilities or produced material for their staff and soldiers in dealing with 
royals in the military?  If yes please provide copies of any meetings, training 
manuals etc”. 
 
It is the view of the Ministry of Defence Legal Department that some of this request calls 
for a legal opinion and as such the Freedom of Information Act is not the appropriate 
 
means by which to seek such an opinion.  However, in response to your first question, I 
am able to confirm that all members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Armed Forces 
Act 2006.   
 
For the remaining questions the Ministry of Defence, in reliance on the exemptions in 
section 23(5) and section 24(2) of the Act neither confirms or denies whether it holds the 
information you requested as the duty in section 1(1)(a) of the Act does not apply by virtue 
of sections 23(5) and 24(2) of the Act. 
 
To the extent that section 24(2) of the Act applies, we have determined that in all the 
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to 
confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether the MOD holds the 
information.  To give a statement of the reasons for this would involve the disclosure of 
information which itself would be exempt information.  Therefore, under section 17(4) of 
the Act, the MOD is not obliged to give such a statement.  However, this should not be 
taken as necessarily indicating that any further information that would meet your request 
exists or does not exist. 
 
If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the 
handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance.  If informal 
resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an 
independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, 
MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]).  Please note that 
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on 
which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end. 
 
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the 
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of 
Information Act.  Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your 
case until the MOD internal review process has been completed.  Further details of the 
role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's 
website, http://www.ico.gov.uk. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 12 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 23 July 2009 12:01 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXX / XXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
Apologies – I should have spotted earlier that the request does not ask for recorded information 
and that the way it is worded, the requester seems to be seeking an opinion.  I am content with 
your approach. 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:44 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXXX / XXXXXXXXX 
  
I've revised the draft reply slightly to try and make clear it is not a valid request. 
  
We are however in a slightly tricky position as you have already issued a PIT extension - which I have seen 
on the what do they know website. In future, it would be really helpful if you would consult me asap on these 
requests - as it makes our handling of this harder now that you have already replied. 
  
Are you content with this approach? The AG's Office used it in response to a very similar request from the 
same applicant here: 
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to_what_extent_are_the_queen_and#comment-2850 
  
If so, I'll clear the draft with the Palace. (NB - please don't issue this until I get back to you) 
  
xxxxxxxx 
  
xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
FOI Team 
Cabinet Office 
Tel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  
  
-----Original Message----- 
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: 20 July 2009 15:32 
To: FOI Team - Private Office - 
Subject: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
Dear Cabinet office FOI team, 
 
PSA draft response and retrans of CH Referral form for the Chand Bakshi request. Please forward 
any guidance to both me and the relevant desk officer – xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Thank you. 
 
Regards, 
 
xxxxxxxxxx. 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 July 2009 14:59 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
Your expert advice please. 
 
This has been hanging around for a while due to the lawyers deliberating.  The bottom line is that 
members of the royal family are subject to the armed forces act.  The remaining questions call for 
legal advice.  If this advice has been requested or given then it would be exempt under legal 
privilege.  Some background detail has been given regarding both the Princes’ time at Sandhurst 
and that they were both subject to the same disciplinary process as any other cadet but no formal 
guidance was issued.  However, I suspect that there may have been some constitutional guidance 
given.  I know from my own time in the service that we were all briefed through orders how to 
address the royal family and various security measures that needed to be taken.    
 
In the spirit of trying to be helpful you will see in my draft response that I have confirmed their 
applicability to the Armed forces Act but have then used NCND, (maybe incorrectly?)  Is this 
exemption specifically for security matters or could it be applied in this case?  I suspect that it 
might just be wise to say questions 2- 4 call for a legal opinion but I would appreciate any direction 
you could give. 
 
Many thanks 
 
 
 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
The Cabinet Office computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective 
operation of the system and for other lawful 
 
ATTACHMENT 13 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 25 June 2009 09:06 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: FW: FOI REQUEST - ROYAL FAMILY SERVING IN ARMED FORCES 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX, 
 
Please see below input from RN SME 
 
Regards 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
1-4 Leach Building 
NCHQ 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 24 June 2009 15:35 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: FOI REQUEST - ROYAL FAMILY SERVING IN ARMED FORCES 
 
 
Members of the Royal Family will be subject to the Armed Forces Act 2006 whilst serving as a 
regular member of the Armed Forces, just as every member of the AF is. 
 
If a member is in the Reserves, then the position depends on whether they are on duty/recalled to 
duty.  Each situation would be judged on its own merits. 
 
Although I don’t have the definitive answer on the second question, anything to do with terms and 
conditions of service of any member of the royal family should have been dealt with by the Palace 
and MoD, with agreed protocols.  I am advised that they would have been dealt with by the 
Defence Services Secretary who may well have the required records. 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cdr RN 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXX, Leach Building (MP G-1) 
Whale Island 
PORTSMOUTH 
P02 8BY 
Mil: XXXXXXXXXXX 
Civ: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
IGS: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
The information included in this e-mail, and attachments hereto, is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee.  If you are not 
the intended addressee any disclosure, copying or distribution by you may be unlawful.  Disclosure to any party other than the 
addressee, whether inadvertently or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.  Any disclosure of this 
material must only be done with reference and prior agreement from the Director Naval Legal Services.  Recipients should note that e-mail traffic 
on MOD systems is subject to monitoring, recording and/or auditing to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.  
The statements expressed in this e-mail are personal to the sender and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Department. 
 
 
 
FOI REQUEST 
 
I am currently dealing with an FOI request in respect of members of the Royal family serving in the 
forces.  While the majority of it I can answer with CLS here.  I would be grateful if you could check 
with each of your legal people the response to these: 
 
To what extent the members of the Royal family serving the Armed Forces are subject to the law.  
In particular are they: 
 
          Subject to the Armed forces Act 2006 
 
Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these possibilities or produced 
materials for their staff and soldiers in dealing with Royals in the military?  If yes please 
provide copies of any meetings, training manuals etc. 
 
 
Not really sure if the response is going to be very clear as it will require a legal opinion but if there 
is anything in a cupboard somewhere then grateful for any help. 
 
Kind regards 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |XXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 14 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 31 July 2009 12:13 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Chand Bakshi request for FOI internal review (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-001) 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX, 
 
Mr Bakshi has asked for an independent internal review of the above case that I believe you 
are handling.  Can you please arrange for me to be sent the required documents (preferable 
electronically) as per our standard CIO internal review list attached? 
 
A response to me, if possible, by 5 Aug 09 would be most helpful.  Meanwhile, I will write to 
the requestor and acknowledge his request for a review.  
 
What is the hold-up exactly?  I see the reply was due on 10 Jul.  His questions 1 to 4 do not 
require application of the FOI Act as they are not requests for recorded information.  They 
only need a  “yes” or a “no” type answer.  His fifth question only becomes FOI if such 
discussions have taken place and we hold relevant recorded information in scope of his 
request.   
XXXXXXXXX  
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXX 
XXXXXX 
MB XXXXXXXX 
BT XXXXXXX 
  
Copy to XXXXXXXXX for info. 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 15 
Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information 
Regulations; Internal Review Purpose 
 
Important guidance –please read before assisting with an Internal FOIA/EIR 
Review 
 
1.  The purpose of an FOIA/EIR internal review is to provide a thorough 
independent assessment of how a request was handled by MOD, ensuring 
that it was processed in accordance with the Act/Regulations and that the 
department’s handling will stand up to scrutiny should it be appealed to 
the Information Commissioner.   
 
2.   Any lessons learnt from the review will be fed into the CIO Access 
Operations team for wider dissemination to focal points.  This will allow the 
department to improve its initial responses to requests for information. 
 
3.    The department has an internal target of 40 working days, (and an 
Information Commissioner’s Office best practice target of 20 working) 
days, for completing reviews.  You must therefore respond to this email 
within 5 working days. 
 
4.  There will be valid reasons why much of the information held by the 
department can not be released under FOIA/EIR.  The review process 
provides the department another opportunity to ensure that it has fulfilled 
its legal obligations. 
 
5.  Very occasionally the department internal review process finds it necessary 
to overturn either partially or wholly the original decision.  It may also be 
necessary to apply additional exemptions.  It is recognised that many FOI 
requests are not straightforward to handle and sometimes misjudgements 
are made, especially in complex cases, so if we do overrule a decision 
please don’t take it personally!   
 
We thank you in advance for your cooperation, 
The Review Team 
 
 
Review Team 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX:           XXXXXXX   
 
(XXXXXXX) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information required for an Internal Review 
 
Please complete checklist and return with information required for review 
 
•  The original request(s) □ 
•  The information considered to be within the scope of the request(s)  □ 
(Where there is a large volume of documents it may be helpful to produce a 
schedule in the form of a table) 
•  If responding that information is not held, a record of all those parts of the 
department which were contacted in the search  □ 
•  Any acknowledgements to the original request(s)  □ 
 
•  Any requests for clarification  □ 
 
•  Any notifications of additional time to examine the public interest  □ 
 
•  Any other letters, e-mails or records of telephone calls to the applicant in the 
course of responding to the request(s)  □ 
 
•  Where information has been withheld or redacted, an indication of where individual 
redactions apply to the information (this is required for audit trail purposes)  □ 
 
•  Documents setting out the public interest test if qualified exemptions were used to 
withhold information  □ 
 
•  Where Section 12 is applied (exceeds the cost limit for compliance) details of how 
cost was calculated. 
 
•  Any communications with, opinions of, or advice from third parties on release 
(including the MOJ Clearing House or other Government Departments, if they 
advised)  □ 
 
•  Evidence of 1* approval to use exemptions  □ 
 
•  The final response(s) sent  □ 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 16 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 31 July 2009 14:27 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: Chand Bakshi request for FOI internal review (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-
001) 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
Further to our telephone conversation, I would strongly advise that you differentiate in 
your response those parts of his request that are being answered under FOI and 
those which are simply yes and no answers in the way of normal business 
correspondence.   
 
His right of appeal to CIO-Head of Corporate Information is in relation to FOI 
responses only.    
 
The Act gives a right of access to recorded information held by, or on behalf of, a 
public authority; the bulk of what Mr Bakshi has asked for is a series of one word 
answers to factual questions which are outside the scope of the legislation. 
 
XXXXXXXXX  
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXX 
MB XXXXXXXX 
BT XXXXXXXX 
  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 31 July 2009 12:13 
To: XXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Chand Bakshi request for FOI internal review (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-001) 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
 
Mr Bakshi has asked for an independent internal review of the above case that I believe you 
are handling.  Can you please arrange for me to be sent the required documents (preferable 
electronically) as per our standard CIO internal review list attached? 
 
A response to me, if possible, by 5 Aug 09 would be most helpful.  Meanwhile, I will write to 
the requestor and acknowledge his request for a review.  
 
What is the hold-up exactly?  I see the reply was due on 10 Jul.  His questions 1 to 4 do not 
require application of the FOI Act as they are not requests for recorded information.  They 
only need a  “yes” or a “no” type answer.  His fifth question only becomes FOI if such 
discussions have taken place and we hold relevant recorded information in scope of his 
request.   
XXXXXXXX  
XXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXX 
MB XXXXXX 
BT XXXXXX 
  
Copy to XXXXXXXXXX for info. 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 17 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 03 August 2009 16:19 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: Chand Bakshi request for FOI internal review (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-
001) 
 
XXXXXXX 
 
Please find attached the letter released this afternoon following approval from the 
Palace.  The redraft was crafted by XXXXXXXX who cleared the response. 
 
You will note that it does not contain my details as it is with WHATDOTHEYKNOW. 
 
Do you still need the case work as I have been led to believe that he is not able to 
seek a review due to it not being an FOI request. 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 31 July 2009 14:27 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
CcXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: Chand Bakshi request for FOI internal review (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-
001) 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX, 
 
Further to our telephone conversation, I would strongly advise that you differentiate in 
your response those parts of his request that are being answered under FOI and 
those which are simply yes and no answers in the way of normal business 
correspondence.   
 
His right of appeal to CIO-Head of Corporate Information is in relation to FOI 
responses only.    
 
The Act gives a right of access to recorded information held by, or on behalf of, a 
public authority; the bulk of what Mr Bakshi has asked for is a series of one word 
answers to factual questions which are outside the scope of the legislation. 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXX 
MB XXXXXXX 
BT XXXXXXXXX 
  
 
From: XXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 31 July 2009 12:13 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: Chand Bakshi request for FOI internal review (AIT ref: 14-05-2009-110651-001) 
 
XXXXXXX, 
 
Mr Bakshi has asked for an independent internal review of the above case that I believe you 
are handling.  Can you please arrange for me to be sent the required documents (preferable 
electronically) as per our standard CIO internal review list attached? 
 
A response to me, if possible, by 5 Aug 09 would be most helpful.  Meanwhile, I will write to 
the requestor and acknowledge his request for a review.  
 
What is the hold-up exactly?  I see the reply was due on 10 Jul.  His questions 1 to 4 do not 
require application of the FOI Act as they are not requests for recorded information.  They 
only need a  “yes” or a “no” type answer.  His fifth question only becomes FOI if such 
discussions have taken place and we hold relevant recorded information in scope of his 
request.   
XXXXXX 
XXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXX 
MB XXXXX 
BT XXXXXXXX 
  
Copy to XXXXXXXX for info. 
 
 
 
Ministry of Defence 
ATTACHMENT 18 Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB 
 
Telephone 020 7218 9000  
 
Deputy Chief Of Defence Staff (Personnel) - Secretariat 
 
SP 01.02.04.03 
14-05-2009-110651-001 Bakshi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chand Bakshi 
[email address]   
20 July 2009 
 
 
Dear Chand 
 
Thank you for your e-mail of 13 May 2009 which has been considered to be a request for 
information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I am sorry for the 
delay in responding.  You requested the following information: 
 
‘Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed 
Forces Act.  In particular, you would like to know if they are: 
 
1. 
Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
2. 
Could they be court-martialled?  For example a General Court 
Martial? 
 
3. 
With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example  
Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable for prosecution for war crimes if 
any were to be committed? 
 
4. 
Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them over to the  
International Criminal Court? 
 
5. 
Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these  
possibilities or produced material for their staff and soldiers in dealing with 
royals in the military?  If yes please provide copies of any meetings, training 
manuals etc”. 
 
The Freedom of Information Act provides applicants with a right of access to recorded 
information.  Your request is not a request for recorded information.  We would of course 
be happy to re-consider the question asked should it be re-phrased as a request for 
recorded information. A ‘valid’ request under the Act is one that asks to see recorded 
information held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue, or 
process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or calculations etc. 
 
I am sorry that my previous letter, of 15 June, implied that we would treat your request as 
a ‘valid’ one under the Act, and explained that the Ministry of Defence needed further time 
to consider the public interest test.  This was a mistake, for which I apologise, and we 
should have written to you sooner to confirm that your email is not a legitimate request.  
 
 
However, outside our obligations under the Act, in response to your first question, I am 
able to confirm that all members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Armed Forces Act 
2006.   
 
I have not included details of our internal review procedure, or how to complain to the 
Information Commissioner, as your questions are not valid requests under the Act and 
these appeal procedures only apply to legitimate requests. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 19 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 24 August 2009 13:13 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXXX, 
 
PSA final response to this request. 
 
Regards, 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXX 
XXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Sent: 24 August 2009 10:53 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXX / XXXXXXXX, 
  
I don't think I've received a copy of the final response to this case yet? 
  
(Apologies if you have sent it through and I've missed it though). If not, could you send it to me please. 
  
XXXXXXX 
-----Original Message----- 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXX -  
Sent: 31 July 2009 11:04 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
Both, 
  
I've now heard back from the Palace about this and they are happy with our suggested revised draft (re-
attached). 
  
So, over to you to send out.  
  
Could you send me a copy of the final response when it has gone out in due course. 
  
XXXXXXXX - Meridio file here: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
thanks 
XXXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXXX 
FOI Team 
Cabinet Office 
Tel: XXXXXXXXX 
-----Original Message----- 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 23 July 2009 12:01 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
XXXXXXXXXXX / XXXXXXXX, 
 
Apologies – I should have spotted earlier that the request does not ask for recorded information 
and that the way it is worded, the requester seems to be seeking an opinion.  I am content with 
your approach. 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXXX 
 
 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:44 
To: XXXXXXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: RE: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXX / XXXXXXXX, 
  
I've revised the draft reply slightly to try and make clear it is not a valid request. 
  
We are however in a slightly tricky position as you have already issued a PIT extension - which I have seen 
on the what do they know website. In future, it would be really helpful if you would consult me asap on these 
requests - as it makes our handling of this harder now that you have already replied. 
  
Are you content with this approach? The AG's Office used it in response to a very similar request from the 
same applicant here: 
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to_what_extent_are_the_queen_and#comment-2850 
  
If so, I'll clear the draft with the Palace. (NB - please don't issue this until I get back to you) 
  
XXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXX 
FOI Team 
Cabinet Office 
Tel: XXXXXX 
  
  
-----Original Message----- 
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 July 2009 15:32 
To: XXXXXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
Dear Cabinet office FOI team, 
 
PSA draft response and retrans of CH Referral form for the Chand Bakshi request. Please forward 
any guidance to both me and the relevant desk officer – XXXXXXXXXXXX. Thank you. 
 
Regards, 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXX Main Building 
Ministry of Defence 
Whitehall 
London SW1A 2HB 
Tel: XXXXXXXX 
Fax: XXXXXXXX 
 
 
From: XXXXXXXXXXX  
Sent: 20 July 2009 14:59 
To: XXXXXXX 
Subject: 20090720-FOI(Royal)-U 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
 
Your expert advice please. 
 
This has been hanging around for a while due to the lawyers deliberating.  The bottom line is that 
members of the royal family are subject to the armed forces act.  The remaining questions call for 
legal advice.  If this advice has been requested or given then it would be exempt under legal 
privilege.  Some background detail has been given regarding both the Princes’ time at Sandhurst 
and that they were both subject to the same disciplinary process as any other cadet but no formal 
guidance was issued.  However, I suspect that there may have been some constitutional guidance 
given.  I know from my own time in the service that we were all briefed through orders how to 
address the royal family and various security measures that needed to be taken.    
 
In the spirit of trying to be helpful you will see in my draft response that I have confirmed their 
applicability to the Armed forces Act but have then used NCND, (maybe incorrectly?)  Is this 
exemption specifically for security matters or could it be applied in this case?  I suspect that it 
might just be wise to say questions 2- 4 call for a legal opinion but I would appreciate any direction 
you could give. 
 
Many thanks 
 
 
 
 
 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
  
XXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, 
XXXXXXX | MOD Main Building | Whitehall |  
London SW1A 2HB | 
Tel: XXXXXXXX 
Email:XXXXXXXX |    | XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
The Cabinet Office computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective 
operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.  
 
 
Ministry of Defence 
ATTACHMENT 20  Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB 
Telephone 020 7218 9000  
 
Deputy Chief Of Defence Staff (Personnel) - Secretariat 
 
SP 01.02.04.03 
14-05-2009-110651-001 Bakshi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chand Bakshi 
[email address]   
20 July 2009 
 
 
Dear Chand 
 
Thank you for your e-mail of 13 May 2009 which has been considered to be a request for 
information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I am sorry for the 
delay in responding.  You requested the following information: 
 
‘Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed 
Forces Act.  In particular, you would like to know if they are: 
 
1. 
Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006? 
 
2. 
Could they be court-martialled?  For example a General Court 
Martial? 
 
3. 
With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example  
Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable for prosecution for war crimes if 
any were to be committed? 
 
4. 
Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them over to the  
International Criminal Court? 
 
5. 
Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these  
possibilities or produced material for their staff and soldiers in dealing with 
royals in the military?  If yes please provide copies of any meetings, training 
manuals etc”. 
 
The Freedom of Information Act provides applicants with a right of access to recorded 
information.  Your request is not a request for recorded information.  We would of course 
be happy to re-consider the question asked should it be re-phrased as a request for 
recorded information. A ‘valid’ request under the Act is one that asks to see recorded 
information held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue, or 
process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or calculations etc. 
 
I am sorry that my previous letter, of 15 June, implied that we would treat your request as 
a ‘valid’ one under the Act, and explained that the Ministry of Defence needed further time 
to consider the public interest test.  This was a mistake, for which I apologise, and we 
should have written to you sooner to confirm that your email is not a legitimate request.  
 
 
However, outside our obligations under the Act, in response to your first question, I am 
able to confirm that all members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Armed Forces Act 
2006.   
 
I have not included details of our internal review procedure, or how to complain to the 
Information Commissioner, as your questions are not valid requests under the Act and 
these appeal procedures only apply to legitimate requests. 
 
 
 

Document Outline