Robinson and McGuinness tried to block FOI by saying disclosure would cost them votes

Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness argued that they should be allowed to block an FOI request on the the grounds that releasing it could cost the votes. The OFMDFM is one of only four UK institutions tabbed by the Information Commission because of its poor record in complying with the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner, the watchdog which enforces the open government law, said: 

"The electoral prospects of individuals are not strictly a relevant factor when weighing the public interest in the disclosure of information."

The attempt to block the FOI procedure came after the News Letter made a response for the department’s ‘risk register’. The Information Commissioner dismissed the claim and ordered OFMDFM to provide the information by May 1 2014.

Spider Letters go to Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal has ruled unlawful the move by the Attorney General to suppress the publication of Prince Charles letters. Judgment in full here. Guardian reported here.

Roy Greenslade assented to the judgement and said:

"If Prince Charles is not neutral then the public have a right to know."

Paul Tweed dissented, saying the decision represented an incursion into the privacy of Prince Charles. Archie Bland called it a matter of secrecy, not privacy. 

Refusal to release Charles' black spiders is not about privacy - it's about secrecy. Which is outrageous. Wrote this: http://t.co/D03lIA5JwU
— Archie Bland (@archiebland) March 17, 2014

However, we will not see Prince Charles' "spider letters" any time soon. The Attorney-General has taken leave to appeal  to the UK Supreme Court (@ukSupremeCourt). Attorney General Dominic Grieve said:

"We are very disappointed by the decision of the court. We will be pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court in order to protect the important principles which are at stake in this case."