header-logo header-logo

16 June 2023 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8029 / Categories: Features , Public , Judicial review , National security
printer mail-detail

Royal protection for sale?

126375
Nicholas Dobson examines the decision to refuse judicial review of the Duke of Sussex’s security provisions
  • The home secretary’s decision to delegate to the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) the ‘in principle’ decision as to whether an individual whose position had been determined by RAVEC not to justify protective security should be permitted to receive it on the basis that they reimburse the public purse for its cost was lawful, as was its decision in the negative. All the claimant’s grounds of challenge were found to be unarguable.
  • Permission to apply for judicial review was therefore refused.

Although the Duke of Sussex may not perhaps be universally popular, some will certainly have welcomed his attentions. For as a seasoned litigant running various current actions, the duke is definitely keeping some members of the legal profession actively busy on his behalf.

But, unfortunately for the duke, one of his legal claims failed before Mr Justice Chamberlain in the Administrative Court on 23 May 2023. This was R (HRH Duke of Sussex) v Secretary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll