header-logo header-logo

16 June 2023
Issue: 8029 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Judicial review , National security
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Why the court said no to Prince Harry

126375
Prince Harry has been making Royal legal history recently by appearing in court, although some of his legal action has encountered obstacles. In this week’s NLJ, writer Nicholas Dobson looks into the decision to refuse judicial review of the Duke of Sussex’s security provisions.

As one of the most famous people in the world, and with some fanatical opponents as well as a devoted fan base, security is a major concern for the duke. He challenged the home secretary’s decision to delegate the ‘in principle’ decision on the provision of protective security after he stepped down from his role as a working Royal.

Dobson writes: ‘As a seasoned litigant running various current actions, the duke is definitely keeping some members of the legal profession actively busy on his behalf.’

Dobson covers the background to the action, the various arguments for and against, grounds of challenge, relevant caselaw and the decision—read more here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll