header-logo header-logo

Royal protection for sale?

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll