Why is the Duchy of Cornwall exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Duchy and UK government claim that the Duchy of Cornwall is a
private estate (i.e. not a public authority) and therefore exempt
from the FOI act.

The UK definition of the term ‘public authority’ is a body or
organisation that performs any function of a public nature, and was
either (a) created by Parliament or (b) by the Royal Prerogative.
The Duchy of Cornwall meets that definition on all counts.

Within Cornwall the Duchy of Cornwall performs a similar role to
the Crown Estate. The former is exempt from the FOI act while the
latter is not.

During the 1828 Rowe v Brenton Trial at Bar, the presiding judge,
Lord Tenderten, Lord Chief Justice Kings Bench, affirmed that: "the
public has an interest in everything that is done in the duchy."
Even in 1828, case law could identify that the duchy was a public
body and therefore legally anything but a ‘private estate’.

During the course of the 1855-58 foreshore dispute the Attorney
General to the Duchy of Cornwall made the following statement: "The
presumed object of the officers of the Crown is to show that the
Duchy possessions consisted merely of the particular manors and
estates which are mentioned by name in the Duchy Charter, and did
not comprise a territory such as Terra de Cornubia [the territory
of Cornwall]. I intend to show how little ground there is for such
a conclusion." This duchy statement totally contradicts the latest
claims that his duchy is merely a ‘private estate’ based on a
collection of manors and other holdings as referenced in the duchy
charters.

The Duke of Cornwall is still granted a number of unique statutory
"privileges, exemptions, powers, rights and authority" in the
Cornwall (Tamar Bridge) Act 1998, s.41, and other Acts. In addition
the Treasury Solicitors agency for Bona Vicantia Division considers
The Duchy of Cornwall to comprise the County of Cornwall.

The Kilbrandon Report (1969–1971) into the British constitution
recommends that, when referring to Cornwall, official sources
should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in
recognition of its constitutional position.

Please explain why the Duchy of Cornwall is exempt from the FOI act
in light of the above information. Please provide all information
that could elucidate the exact constitutional status of the Duchy
of Cornwall and validate or not its exemption to the FOI act.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Hosking

Dear Emily Oyama,

Many thanks for your response and I full understand the comments
regarding my repeated requests. This has been taken on board and
understood.

You wrote:

""""‘Public authority’ has a specific definition for the purposes
of the Freedom of Information Act. It is defined there as any body
listed in Schedule 1 to the Act or a ‘publicly-owned company’. The
Duchy of Cornwall is not listed in Schedule 1. Nor is it a
publicly-owned company as defined in section 6 of the Act. This
means that the Duchy is not a public authority for the purposes of
the Act""""

""""The FOI Act includes powers for Ministers to designate
additional organisations as public authorities for freedom of
information purposes by orders, either under section 4 which
applies to bodies created and partly appointed by the Crown or by
government etc, or under section 5 which applies to bodies that
carry out public functions. The Government has no plans to bring
the Duchy of Cornwall within the scope of the Act""""

Its seems totally unsatisfactory that a body such as the Duchy of
Cornwall which does have some of the attributes of a Public
Authority and is clearly a body of governance should be left out of
the FOI act.

Its seems list you mention in schedule one is rather arbitrary. One
must ask why the Government has no plans to bring the Duchy of
Cornwall within the scope of the Act? As can be seen from this
fully referenced website www.duchyofcornwall.eu there are many
unanswered questions pertaining to the Duchy and it is a shame that
the government does not feel in a position to be able to answer
them.

I would be grateful if you could pass my comments on to those who
may be interested and I would also appreciate any advise you can
give on progressing this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Hosking

Dear Janet Hawkes,

It is strange for you to claim that the Duchy of Cornwall is simply
a 'private estate' because the Duchy in its arbitration against the
Crown over the right to the Cornish Foreshore claimed quite the
opposite (see below)

"""In conclusion, it is submitted that the facts and authorities
before referred to are sufficient to establish,-

1st. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest,
and was subsequently treated in many respects, as distinct from
England.

2nd. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and
prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory
or territorial dominion.

3rd. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy
enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as
regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a greater
extent than had been enjoyed by the Earls.

4th. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the
circumstances attending its creation, as well as the language of
the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm the natural
presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied
with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls
had enjoyed, but also afford evidence that the Duchy was to be
invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.

And lastly. That the Duchy Charters have always been construed and
treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the
Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of
Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown
in and over the entire County of Cornwall"""

Duchy of Cornwall,
Somerset House,
May, 1855."

There is an obvious contradiction between what is officially
presented, and publicly perceived, as "the Duchy of Cornwall" and
what the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall submitted as conclusive
evidence to support the Duke's right to the ownership of the
foreshore, around Cornwall, between high and low water mark back in
1856-57. It amazes me that the UK government considers lies and
disinformation to be acceptable when the research on the fully
referenced www.duchyofcornwall.eu website totally rubbishes the
claim that the Duchy of Cornwall is simply a private estate.

The Duchy of Cornwall performs a similar function within the
territory of Cornwall to that played by the Crown Estate in the
rest of the UK. The former is exempt from the FOI act yet the
latter is not.

Perhaps you could tell me if the Duchy of Cornwall was ever
discussed by government in relation to the FOI act and schedule 1.
Who gave an opinion on this subject? What did they say?

Yours sincerely,

Philip Hosking

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's
handling of my FOI request 'Why is the Duchy of Cornwall exempt
from the Freedom of Information Act?'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wh...

It is totally unacceptable that a body such as the Duchy of
Cornwall which clearly is NOT just a private estate is exempt from
the FOI act. Further more it is equally unacceptable that the
Cornish public has no way of knowing if the Duchy has even been
discussed in relation to the FOI act.

You may like to know that on the 6th of March in Redruth, Cornwall,
John Kirkhope (B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.(Hons.), Dip. N.P., TEP Notary
Public, Non Practising Solicitor) will be giving a public lecture
on the constitutional legal position of the Duchy in relation to
the territory of Cornwall.

Once again, with a public audience, the fiction that the Duchy of
Cornwall is just a private estate (the fiction you and the current
Duchy authority like to promote as the truth) will be rubbished.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Hosking