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

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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll