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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll