The King on the application of the Duke of Sussex v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lane |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 418 (Admin) |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: AC/2021/LON/002527 |
[2024] EWHC 418 (Admin)
Mr Justice Lane
Case No: AC/2021/LON/002527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Shaheed Fatima KC, Mr Jason Pobjoy, Ms Gayatri Sarathy and Ms Marlena Valles (instructed by Schillings International LLP) for the claimant
Sir James Eadie KC, Mr Robert Palmer KC, Mr Christopher Knight and Mr Aaron Moss (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the defendant
Hearing dates: 5–7 December 2023
Confidential draft judgment circulated: 1 February 2024
Approved Judgment
(REDACTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUBLICATION)
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 28 February 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
The claimant challenges, by way of judicial review, the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), communicated in a letter of 28 February 2020 that, as a result of his change in status in the Royal Family, he would no longer be provided with the same degree of publicly-funded personal protective security by the police, when in Great Britain. RAVEC's decision followed the decision of the claimant to cease to be a full-time working member of the Royal Family, carrying out official duties on behalf of the Sovereign. In his first witness statement, the claimant says that “my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020”. Although Ms Fatima KC drew attention to what the claimant had there said, it is common ground that the claimant's motivation for his decision is not in issue in these proceedings.
I reiterate what I said at the conclusion of the public hearing on 7 December 2023. The parties have been extremely well-served by their respective leading counsel and legal teams, as has the court.
The hearing of this judicial review was conducted partly in public and partly in private, pursuant to CPR 39.2. On 4 December 2023, I made an order pursuant to CPR 39.2 (3)(a)–(c), read with the confidentiality order of Swift J of 24 March 2022 and his confidentiality ring order of 19 June 2023. In broad summary, certain of the information relied upon in this case concerns security arrangements put in place either for the claimant or for other public figures in the United Kingdom. The public disclosure of such information would manifestly have a serious adverse impact on the individuals concerned, as well as being contrary to the public interest, including that of national security. To preclude the parties from making reference to this information would prevent the case from being determined justly. Accordingly, the publicly-available form of this judgment contains redactions.
THE DECISION OF 28 FEBRUARY 2020
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (the defendant) is responsible within Cabinet and accountable to Parliament for matters of national security. This includes the protective security of members of the Royal Family and other public figures. The defendant has delegated responsibility to RAVEC, which is an independently chaired Executive Committee established to act as an overarching executive authority for all matters relating to protective security arrangements for a cohort of individuals who are assessed to be at a particular risk from a range of threats in Great Britain, including terrorism, extremism and fixated behaviour. The Home Office, the Police (through the Metropolitan Police Service) the Royal Household, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are represented on RAVEC. Others, such as [redacted text] or police forces, can be invited to attend at the discretion of RAVEC's chair.
The decision of 28 February 2020 was taken by the then chair of RAVEC, Sir Richard Mottram GCB. The decision letter was addressed to the Rt Hon Sir Edward Young, Private Secretary to Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The letter was headed “Security arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”. Sir Richard said that he was writing about those security arrangements in the light of the change in roles of the claimant and his wife from full-time working members of the Royal Family to privately-funded members of the Family; and of their decision to spend the majority of their time in Canada for the next 12 months at least. The letter recorded that it was understood the claimant and his wife would travel back to the United Kingdom to pursue their private charity work and that Her Majesty the Queen may from time to time invite them to attend Royal occasions in the United Kingdom in their private capacity and to participate in family events. The letter said “As you know RAVEC essentially focuses on [redacted text] and who are considered to be at sufficient risk to justify publicly-funded measures to mitigate that risk.” RAVEC was said to be “responsible for risks arising within Great Britain as they affect principals who are in almost every case resident within Great Britain. The future arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not fit readily within this framework”.
The letter explained that RAVEC had “commissioned up-to-date threat assessments” in respect of the claimant and his wife. RAVEC would continue to monitor the security of the claimant's family, including through periodic threat assessments. If anything should change “in terms of specific threat this would be communicated to the Home Office through established channels with the police and [redacted text] and actioned as necessary”.
Given “[redacted text] the Duke and Duchess, the existing provision of [redacted text] by the Metropolitan Police Service … will no longer be appropriate and will be withdrawn by no later than 31 March 2020”. Against the background set out earlier in the letter, there was no basis for publicly-funded security support for the claimant and his wife within Great Britain in relation to [redacted text].
The letter continued that it was “difficult, however, to judge what might be appropriate without knowing the Duke of Sussex's forward programme or what private arrangements if any are being made for his security in Great Britain to link with and complement those which are being put in place in Canada”. It was therefore thought to be sensible to put in place liaison arrangements between HM the Queen's Private Office, the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office in order “to look periodically at any forward engagements that may potentially warrant additional security attention”. Sir Richard suggested that there should be a tripartite meeting to follow-up these detailed points and, in the light of that meeting, he would “intend to look at what guidance should be issued about the support to be provided and the mechanisms for liaison and the approval of support in individual cases”.
The letter ended by saying that, in the light of his personal involvement in future security arrangements for the claimant and his wife, the letter was being copied to Sir Mark Sedwill. It was also being copied to “[the Current Chair] and [redacted text] (MPS) but not more widely to other RAVEC members”.
Both the lead-up to the decision of 28 February 2020 and certain matters which postdated it need to be set out in detail. In order to assist understanding, it may be convenient at this point to name and say something about those who feature most prominently in the account which follows. What I am about to say solely derives from the evidence before the court, either in the form of communications such as emails or the witness statements which have been filed and served in the present proceedings.
DRAMATIS PERSONAE
Sir Richard Mottram was the Chair of RAVEC from 2009 to April 2021. He had previously been Permanent Secretary in the Office of Public Service and Science within the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Work and Pensions and, finally, Permanent Secretary Intelligence, Security and Resilience and Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee in the Cabinet Office. Sir Richard's first witness statement says that he has “extensive experience of Government across a wide range of policy areas, and am very familiar with decision-making in matters of, or touching on, national security”.
[redacted text] was the Secretary of RAVEC and the Chair of the Risk Management Board (“RMB”). In his emails to Sir Richard Mottram of 9 and 10 January 2020, [redacted text] describes himself as Head of Protective Security Section/Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism Home Office. In his emails to the same recipient of 21 and 25 February 2020, [redacted text] describes himself as Deputy Head of Royalty, VIP and MP Security Unit Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.
[The Current Chair] became the Chair of RAVEC in 2021. He was Chair at the time of the claimant's visits to Great Britain in April and June/July 2021 and March/May and June 2023. [The Current Chair] was [redacted text] and [redacted text]. [The Current Chair]'s witness statement says he is “acutely familiar with the national security and counter-terrorism apparatus and in planning for and addressing risks in connection with the actions of hostile actors”.
[A] was the Royal Household's [redacted text]. He was a member of RAVEC at the time of the February 2020 decision. [A] was also a member of the RMB.
Sir Mark Sedwill was the Cabinet Secretary in 2020.
Shaun Hipgrave is the Director of Protect and Prepare in the Homeland Security Group, formerly known as the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. He assumed that role in...
To continue reading
Request your trial