Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos reads the summary of his judgement in the Prince Harry security case appeal in the UK Court of Appeal.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00For rising labels.
00:30So, this afternoon we're going to hand down our judgements in the case of the Duke of Sussex against the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
00:50I'm going to read out a summary of my judgment, which has been prepared so as to assist the public and the press to understand what exactly the Court has decided.
01:05It should, however, be understood by all that the full judgments themselves are the only authoritative version of what has been decided.
01:15We will have some hard copies of both the press summary and the full judgments here to let you have after the hearing.
01:25But the judgment will be uploaded as usual this afternoon to the case law section of the National Archives website, so it will be accessible to everyone.
01:38Introduction.
01:39In this case, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, seeks a declaration that the protective security arrangements provided for him on his visits to the United Kingdom are inadequate and unlawful.
01:56The defendant to the claim is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whom I'm going to call the SSHD,
02:07because she is accountable to Parliament for the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as RAVEC,
02:18which provides protection for royalty and certain other very important people.
02:24On the 28th of February 2020, Sir Richard Mottram, who was then the Chair of RAVEC,
02:35wrote a decision letter explaining that protection would be withdrawn from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the 31st of March 2020.
02:47In early 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moved out of the United Kingdom to live first in Canada and then later in California.
03:01The main issue raised by this appeal is whether Sir Peter Lane, who was the judge, was right to dismiss the Duke of Sussex's claim.
03:12The judge decided that RAVEC, in taking its decision to withdraw the Duke's security,
03:21had good reason not to follow its 2017 policy.
03:27That policy provided that RAVEC would evaluate a risk analysis conducted by its Risk Management Board
03:38in order to determine which individuals should receive protection.
03:46RAVEC had not commissioned any risk analysis from the Risk Management Board in respect of the Duke of Sussex before taking that decision.
03:58The judge also decided that the Duke of Sussex was not in an analogous position to certain other VIPs for whom protection is provided by RAVEC.
04:13Part of the two-day hearing before the Court of Appeal, which is composed of me, the Master of the Roles,
04:23and Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, was conducted in private.
04:31Because of the confidentiality of the security arrangements provided for members of the Royal Family and for other individuals,
04:41but the judgements are public, but they have a short confidential annex which will not be made public
04:50in case it puts any of the persons protected by RAVEC at risk.
04:57Did something go wrong with the process?
05:02Ms Shahid Fatima, King's Counsel, leading counsel for the Duke of Sussex,
05:07submitted that this case had an important human dimension.
05:15She submitted that the Duke of Sussex's life was at stake
05:19because of the decision-making in this case.
05:23She said that the bespoke process adopted by RAVEC
05:27had singled the Duke out for especially inferior treatment
05:32as compared to all others protected by RAVEC.
05:36In effect, it had been predetermined in the decision letter
05:42that on future visits to the UK,
05:46the Duke of Sussex would be provided with a lower level of security
05:50than had been provided for him throughout his adult life.
05:57This demonstrated, submitted Ms Fatima,
06:01that something had gone wrong with the process.
06:03She submitted that the claimant was still subject to the same risks as he was
06:09before he stepped back from royal duties
06:12and that the impact of an attack upon him
06:15was obviously still just as significant as it has always been.
06:22His military service, she said, placed him at particular risk.
06:27Although it was not suggested that no security provision had been made,
06:33the Duke of Sussex strongly criticised the adequacy
06:37of what RAVEC had determined was appropriate.
06:40I said in my judgment that these were powerful and moving arguments
06:50and I said that it was plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system.
06:57But, I concluded, having studied the detail of the extensive documentation,
07:05I could not say that the Duke's sense of grievance
07:09translated into a legal argument for the challenge to RAVEC's decision.
07:15The legal question, indeed, the only question for the court,
07:22was whether Sir Richard had failed to follow RAVEC's policy without a good reason.
07:30From the Duke of Sussex's point of view,
07:34I said that something may indeed have gone wrong
07:37in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties
07:44and spend the majority of his time abroad
07:48has been that he's been provided with a more bespoke
07:52and generally lesser level of protection
07:55than what he was provided with in the UK before.
08:00But that did not of itself give rise to a legal complaint.
08:04Did Sir Richard fail to follow RAVEC's policy without a good reason?
08:12I said in my judgment that Sir Richard had indeed failed to follow RAVEC's policy.
08:20But I said that there were four main reasons
08:24for holding as a matter of law
08:28that Sir Richard had had a good reason for having done so.
08:34First, RAVEC's policy was inward-facing and unpublished
08:39and it concerned an area of national importance
08:43that was peculiarly within the expertise
08:46of law enforcement agencies, RAVEC and the royal household.
08:53Secondly, in this area of high political sensitivity,
08:58the court had considerable respect for Sir Richard and RAVEC as decision-makers
09:06because they had unrivaled expertise and experience
09:11in the field of royal protection.
09:15Thirdly, the decision was explained in contemporaneous documentation
09:21to the effect that the Risk Management Board would not undertake
09:26further risk analyses for the Duke of Sussex
09:30because they were no longer required
09:33given the alternative governance arrangements
09:36that were to be established on a case-by-case basis for the future.
09:42Sir Richard had, however, obtained three threat assessments
09:46for the Duke of Sussex during February 2020
09:50before writing the decision letter.
09:54Fourthly, Sir Richard and RAVEC had given compelling reasons
10:00for having reached the conclusion
10:02that the appropriate course was to establish bespoke arrangements
10:07for when the Duke returned to the United Kingdom on future visits.
10:13The Duke was, in effect, stepping in and out
10:18of the cohort of protection provided by RAVEC.
10:23Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort,
10:28but when in the UK, his security would be considered
10:31as appropriate depending on the circumstances.
10:36It was impossible, I said in my judgment,
10:39to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate.
10:44Indeed, it seemed sensible.
10:47Finally, even if there had been a risk analysis
10:51from the Risk Management Board,
10:54it would, very likely, have only confirmed
10:57the threat, vulnerability and impact levels
11:02which the Duke had faced
11:04when earlier risk analyses were undertaken.
11:07But it would have had nothing to say
11:10on the critical features of the changed situation,
11:15which were the need for protective security
11:18on future uncertain visits
11:21and the government's appetite for risk.
11:26The decisions taken in the decision letter
11:29and subsequently
11:30were taken, I said in my judgment,
11:33as an understandable and perhaps predictable reaction
11:39to the Duke of Sussex having stepped back
11:41from royal duties
11:43and having left the UK
11:45to live principally overseas.
11:48So the conclusion
11:49in my judgment,
11:51with which my colleagues,
11:54Lord Justices Bean and Edis,
11:57agreed,
11:58was that the Duke of Sussex's appeal
12:00would be dismissed.
12:03So that concludes this afternoon's hearing.