Key Facts
- •The Duke of Sussex challenged the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) to withdraw his publicly funded personal protection security.
- •RAVEC's decision followed the Duke's decision to cease being a full-time working member of the Royal Family.
- •The challenge was brought by way of judicial review.
- •The hearing was partly public and partly private due to the sensitive nature of security information.
- •The case involved numerous individuals from various government departments and the Royal Household.
- •The Duke's main arguments centered around RAVEC's failure to follow policy, lack of transparency, procedural unfairness, and irrationality in its decision-making.
Legal Principles
Wednesbury unreasonableness
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Procedural fairness
R v SSHD ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Legitimate expectation
Nadarajah principle (R (Nadarajah) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1363)
Judicial review of national security decisions
Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] AC 765
Timeliness of judicial review claims
CPR 54.5(1)
Weight given to expert witness evidence
Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities, Local Government and another [2017] 1 WLR 1865
Transparency in public body decision-making
R (Lumba) v SSHD [2012] 1 AC 245
Outcomes
Application for judicial review refused.
The court found that RAVEC's decision was not unlawful. The Duke's arguments regarding failure to follow policy, lack of transparency, procedural unfairness, and irrationality were rejected. The court emphasized the specialized nature of RAVEC's work and the expertise of its members, affording their judgments significant deference.