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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll