Prince Harry has won permission for a judicial review into how his British security arrangements were cut back after he stepped away from royal duties.
On Friday, the High Court judge said the case could proceed, granting permission for part of Harry’s claim to have a judicial review.
This means there will be a full High Court hearing to review the duke’s claim that his case was mishandled by the public body that decides what levels of protection he receives.
The Duke of Sussex is taking legal action over a decision to not allow him to pay for police protection for himself and his family when visiting from the USA, where they live in California.
“The application for permission to apply for judicial review is allowed in part and refused in part,” Mr Justice Swift said.
The duke’s challenge concerns the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) over his security, after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting.
-
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle at the opening of the Invictus Games in The Hague. AFP -
The Duchess of Sussex spoke at the event. AFP -
Harry and Meghan cheer the athletes. AFP -
Harry founded the games to help the rehabilitation of injured or sick military service members. AFP -
Harry says those involved with Invictus have overcome immense challenges. AFP -
The couple received a standing ovation as they praised 'boundless humility, the compassion and the friendship” of the event. Getty Images -
The Duke of Sussex praised the Ukrainian team. EPA -
Harry says events such as Invictus create opportunities for how to better support Ukraine. AP -
The Duke of Sussex during the Jaguar Land Rover driving challenge. AFP -
Harry is driven by a child in a children's car. EPA -
The couple cheer the participants. AFP -
The couple ride on children's cars. EPA -
The couple obliged photographers and fans. Reuters
His legal team argued that the security arrangements set out in a letter from Ravec, and their application when he visited the UK in June 2021, were invalid due to “procedural unfairness” because he was not given an opportunity to make “informed representations beforehand”.
Shaeed Fatima QC, for the duke, told the court earlier this month: “He didn’t know at that stage that the royal household was involved at all … he was told it was an independent decision.”
However, lawyers for the Home Office say Ravec was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that Harry’s security arrangements will be considered on a “case by case” basis, and argued that permission for a full judicial review should be refused.
Mr Justice Swift said the duke had brought the claim for judicial review on five grounds, four of which were “arguable” and were granted permission, with some parts of the grounds removed.
Harry was granted permission on arguments including that Ravec’s decisions were legally unreasonable, and that the duke should have been told about Ravec’s policy before its decision in February 2020.
Discussing one part of Harry’s claim, Mr Justice Swift said it was “arguable” whether the duke “should have had the opportunity to make representations direct to Ravec, including the opportunity to comment on other matters Ravec considered”.
However, the judge denied permission for other parts of Harry’s claim, including that he should have been told who the members of Ravec were and that he did not have the chance to discuss the “appropriateness” of some people being involved in the committee.
Mr Justice Swift said: “In the course of submissions, it became apparent that, while the claimant may have had disagreements with persons who were Ravec committee members, there was no evidence at all to support a claim that any committee member had approached decisions with a closed mind … Ultimately it was accepted for the claimant that no such case was, or could be, advanced.”
The duke’s lawyers had also argued that Ravec’s policy was applied in an “overly rigid and inflexible manner”, but the judge said this part of the claim could also not go ahead.
