The Duke of Sussex, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

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 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 post-dated 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.

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 2019. In his first witness statement, Mr Hipgrave describes his role as being the senior responsible owner of the Government’s Counter Terrorism Strategy’s objectives of keeping the public safe by strengthening protection against terrorist attacks and minimising the impact of such attacks. Mr Hipgrave states that the “Royalty, VIP and MP Security Unit (“RVIP”) sits within my Directorate”. The RVIP provides a Secretariat to RAVEC. Although not personally a member of RAVEC, Mr Hipgrave states that he is one of those responsible for informing the Secretary of State about RAVEC’s work. Mr Hipgrave attended RAVEC meetings on behalf of the Home Office and was responsible for the Home Office officials who worked in connection with RAVEC and acted as its Secretariat. Mr Hipgrave was not involved in the 2020 decision but was involved in a decision in June 2021, concerning the claimant’s visit to Great Britain. Mr Hipgrave was in the military for ten years and was a police officer for thirteen years. He also has a background in the private-sector working with law enforcement agencies.

[redacted text] was, in 2020, a senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office, working with the Cabinet Secretary. [Redacted text] appears to have been concerned with the claimant’s security whilst the latter was outside the United Kingdom. In 2020, that issue was the responsibility of the Royal and Ministerial Visits Committee (“RMV”). References in the emails to “[redacted text]” are references to [redacted text].

Sir Edward Young was Private Secretary to Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As such, he was a member of RAVEC: paragraph 6 of the 2017 RAVEC terms of reference. In paragraph 16 of his second witness statement, the claimant says he was “expressly told that all correspondence [concerning his security] was to go through the Royal Household, specifically Sir Edward Young and Clive Alderton.”

Tom Laing-Baker was the Late Sovereign’s Assistant Private Secretary. Mr Laing-Baker was not a member of RAVEC in 2020. (He appears to have become a member by 2021, according to the 2021 RAVEC terms of reference.)

Simon Case was the Private Secretary to the Duke of Cambridge. He was not a member of RAVEC or the RMB.

Fiona Mcilwham was Private Secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. She was not a member of RAVEC or the RMB.

On 8 January 2020, an announcement was made in relation to the claimant stepping back from official Royal duties and a public role. On 11 January 2020, Sir Edward Young emailed the claimant with a draft paper, which was largely the work of Simon Case, concerning the detailed arrangements to give effect to the announcement. Following a meeting at Sandringham on 13 January 2020, what the claimant describes as “an agreement of sorts was reached”, which has been described in the media as the “Sandringham Agreement”. Under the heading “on Security”, it was stated that given the claimant’s public profile, as a result of being born into the Royal Family, his military service, his wife’s own independent profile and the history of targeting of the Sussex family by right-wing extremists, the family would “continue to require effective security to protect them”. The Royal Family would support “the Sussexes in making the case for effective support from Her Majesty’s Government and Canadian and other host Governments, whilst noting that these are independent processes and decisions for those Governments”.

It is necessary at this point to refer to the witness statements of Sir Richard Mottram, since the account of the emails which follow concerns the exhibits to his two statements. Following the announcement of 8 January 2020, Sir Richard says that he and his team began to receive enquiries from other parts of Government and the Metropolitan Police in relation to the claimant’s security provision. Sir Richard and his team were aware that RAVEC would need to take a view on the matters that were within its purview, which did not extend to any protective security provision overseas; and that they would need to do so within a relatively short space of time, given the unusual and very high-profile context.

On 9 January 2020, [redacted text] wrote to Sir Richard Mottram “regarding last night’s news”. Among the issues referred to in the email was what [redacted text] protection should be afforded to reflect the evolving role of the claimant and his wife, both in Great Britain and overseas; and what [redacted text] protection the Royal Household might seek to secure.

Later on 9 January, Sir Richard Mottram replied to [redacted text] by email, stating that he was happy for [redacted text] to set up a meeting; although since he thought that [redacted text] was away, it might be difficult to fit that in with him at least. Sir Richard’s initial thoughts were that it was difficult to reach a clear view on future security arrangements unless there was more clarity about the future roles of “the Principals” (that being the expression used in regard to those within the RAVEC cohort) and how they intended to divide their time.

On 10 January, [redacted text] replied to Sir Richard Mottram. The focus of this email was on security arrangements in Canada. The same day, Sir Richard Mottram responded. He noted the website of the claimant and his wife, which suggested that there would be no change in their security arrangements. Sir Richard said that, as Chair of RAVEC, he would expect to review in due course arrangements within Great Britain, without any prior assumptions about what would and would not be appropriate in the new circumstances. He suggested that [redacted text] speak privately to [A] to point out that provision for security both in Great Britain and overseas would need to be looked at in relation to [redacted text] the claimant and his wife.

Also on 10 January 2020, [redacted text] emailed to say he had spoken to [A] and mentioned that the Royal Household was preparing advice for the claimant and his wife on a range of issues, including security. [redacted text] said that apparently the security advice was going to flag to them that HMG might not be prepared to pay for security in the long term under the new arrangements, “So the Household are alive to this possibility”.

On 13 January, Sir Richard Mottram emailed [redacted text] to say that he had had a discussion by telephone with the Cabinet Secretary, who was planning to put in writing with the Royal Household the line he was taking on the security arrangements:-

“In essence this was that [redacted text]. I commented that the Royal Household tended to see matters in [redacted text] – whereas we considered [redacted text]. There might be circumstances where some state support was justified in the context say of [redacted text] but this was different to [redacted text].

He said the Royal Household had also asked whether it was open to them to ask to pay for security delivered by the MPS but he had ruled this out. I agreed.”

On 16 January 2020, Fiona Mcilwham emailed Sir Mark Sedwill. She thanked him for the helpful conversation the two of them had had on 15 January, stating that she had “faithfully relayed the details you had provided on security and finance/ tax exemptions to the Duke”. Ms Mcilwham said that the claimant remained most concerned about security arrangements for his family. She noted that Sir Mark had highlighted that [redacted text]. She noted Sir Mark’s suggestion that with a clearer sense of the claimant’s schedule and, in particular, more detail on the [redacted text], Sir Mark and colleagues might be able to offer a more informed view. To that end, Ms Mcilwham attached for “illustrative rather than exhaustive” purposes, a list of “[redacted text]”, involving the claimant.

Following receipt of that email, Sir Mark Sedwill spoke by telephone to Sir Richard Mottram, who then emailed [redacted text]. In the email, Sir Richard referred to the telephone conversation with Sir Mark, who said he had had detailed conversations with “the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and others in the Royal Household including Edward Young, about their future status and the implications for their future security arrangements”. That future status was still being finalised. What followed in the email was said to be on the assumption that the couple “would essentially become private citizens and would spend much of the year in Canada”. [redacted text]. Sir Mark Sedwill had told them that they should have no expectation that the present security arrangements in Great Britain would continue. RAVEC would wish to review what was appropriate. RAVEC would address any need to mitigate risks of [redacted text] “but not provision because they were celebrities and faced intrusive interest from the public or the press”. If they had concerns regarding the latter risks, they could look to private sector provision. [redacted text], Sir Mark Sedwill said he had told the Duke and Duchess [redacted text]. Although the Royal Household had raised the possibility of making a contribution to the costs of provision by the MPS when acting in support of the Duke and Duchess while they were engaged in [redacted text], this had been ruled out.

Sir Richard Mottram asked how this had been received “and unsurprisingly there had been push-back from the Principal”. Sir Richard added that it was “very helpful for those concerned including Sir Edward Young to hear these messages from [the Cabinet Secretary] because when they heard them from me their reaction was to go above me to try to block action of any kind”. Sir Richard said that Sir Mark told him that there was no immediate further action needed such as, for example, to set out in writing what approach and processes RAVEC would follow in this case. It was said that the two of them could discuss timing of a substantive review of the current Great Britain provision “in the light of the work you have in hand on an accelerated action plan”. “You” is a reference to [redacted text].

I should mention here that Sir Richard Mottram says in his first witness statement that, before the commencement of the present proceedings, he had not seen the draft paper mentioned in paragraph 22 above. The same was true of the email from Fiona Mcilwham of 16 January 2020.

On 27 January 2020, a meeting took place at Buckingham Palace. It was chaired by Sir Edward Young and attended by Sir Mark Sedwill, Sir Richard Mottram, Tom Laing-Baker, Fiona Mcilwham, Simon Case and [A].

[A] composed an email on 28 January, recording what had been discussed. Under the heading “UK Government Position”, Sir Mark Sedwill was recorded as saying that [redacted text] would very likely result in [redacted text]. He said it was very clear that from the Government’s point of view [redacted text]. That would be the Government’s position, even if the arrangement was in the nature of a fixed-term sabbatical. If, however, [redacted text], then this re-categorisation could be reassessed. The Government’s advice would be for the claimant and his wife to contract a private security team, which had the confidence of the Canadians, as well as having a [redacted text].

Under the heading “Risk review and Royal Risk Management Boards (RMB)”, Sir Richard Mottram was recorded as setting out the standard Home Office processes that would be followed, including risk assessment reviews. Sir Richard agreed to commission the [redacted text] work required, with Royal Household engagement at the RMB.

Under the heading “Threat Levels”, Sir Richard Mottram set out that the threat level for the claimant [redacted text]. These threat levels would be reviewed as part of the risk assessment processes by the Home Office. The results would be shared “with the Executive Committee [of RAVEC] in due course. It was agreed that such assessments will need to be reviewed more frequently than annually, to ensure that security arrangements are commensurate to any threats and risks. Threat assessments may change dependant on the role and profiles of the Principals during the next 12 months”.

Under the heading “Timeline for Change”, it was noted that the Canadians were “planning to review security arrangements in days, rather than weeks. The MPS would need to do the same”. Sir Mark Sedwill said that it was therefore necessary to start making new security arrangements as soon as possible. He also said it might be possible to tolerate a “glide-path”, while Sir Richard Mottram said that there could be a temporary transition period, with [redacted text], on the understanding that it would be for a short period only. There was recognition that the security transition would be “challenging”.

Under the heading “Agreed Next Steps and Actions”, the email recorded that the Home Office was “to complete a RMB/risk assessment [redacted text]”. [A] was “[redacted text]”.

Sir Richard Mottram’s first statement says that, in the course of the discussion at this meeting, Fiona Mcilwham made some representations on the claimant’s behalf. She explained that the claimant’s concerns over no longer being part of the RAVEC cohort were two-fold: (i) the claimant’s [redacted text]; and (ii) he wanted to ensure that the British Government recognised [redacted text]. Sir Richard said he indicated that it would be possible for RAVEC to continue to carry out and monitor threat assessments in relation to the claimant, even after any withdrawal of protective security, [redacted text]. He said he fully understood the claimant’s view in relation to threat although it was explained that it was unavoidable that [redacted text]. Sir Richard notes that the witness statement of the claimant says that the latter was not aware of the meeting at the time, although he knew discussions between officials were taking place. As to this, Sir Richard states that it was his understanding and expectation that the claimant’s private secretary and probably other Household officials would be discussing with him what had taken place at the meeting. In this regard, Sir Richard notes the fifth action point in the email of 28 January, which recorded as the third of the agreed next steps and actions that Fiona Mcilwham would “consult with Principals and put in place plans for starting commercial provision”.

On 5 February 2020, Sir Richard Mottram emailed [redacted text] to say he had been told by the Cabinet Office that Sir Edward Young was about to write, setting out final details of the claimant’s future role. This would allow RAVEC properly to review the claimant’s security on an informed basis. In his first witness statement, Sir Richard says that, throughout that period, Sir Richard and Home Office officials, particularly [redacted text], were liaising with other members of RAVEC and interested bodies. Both Sir Richard and [redacted text] kept in regular contact with the MPS, being aware that the MPS were keen for the situation to be resolved as swiftly as possible, especially since they had officers in Canada with the claimant and his family. The MPS did not, however, have any particular view on the appropriate security arrangements for the claimant in Great Britain in the future. Sir Richard says that everyone “shared the understanding that such a fundamental and deliberate change [redacted text] would inevitably involve some measure of change to the protective security authorised by RAVEC”.

On 6 February 2020, Sir Edward Young wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill to describe what had been agreed between Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in January “about what will and will not change in the ways in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lead their lives”. Sir Edward said that not every detail was yet known but he had endeavoured to set out as much information as he could about what had been agreed “some two weeks ago”. Under the heading “Security”, reference was made to the claimant’s public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, as well as his military service. Reference was made to the Duchess’s own independent profile and well documented history of targeting. The Royal Family was also “mindful of tragic incidents of the past”. The document said that “discussions to date, including with Sir Richard Mottram, have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the RAVEC process are well understood”. Her Majesty and the Family recognised that these were “independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security”, which were “for the UK Government, the Government of Canada, and any other host Government”.

This communication from Sir Edward Young was forwarded by the Cabinet Office to Sir Richard Mottram on 10 February. Also on 10 February, Sir Richard Mottram received by email a copied and pasted extract from a letter which the claimant had sent to the Cabinet Secretary. Sir Richard was not given the entire letter at the time. He says in his first witness statement that the part concerned with security arrangements in Great Britain was passed on to him because the Cabinet Office wanted to explore whether he thought it was better for him to respond. Sir Richard replied on 12 February 2020, saying that he did not think it was sensible for him to reply to parts of the letter, not least because much of its focus was on security arrangements overseas, which was not a matter for RAVEC. Sir Richard considered that any response was for the Cabinet Office, although he offered to make suggestions on any draft. In the event, he was not sent any draft reply upon which to comment.

The claimant’s letter to Sir Mark Sedwill (sent by Fiona Mcilwham on 10 February) expressed the claimant’s disbelief that such important conversations were being had without any attempt by anyone to consult the claimant. The claimant could not see how he could have his security removed, unless the current risk to him and his family had decreased, [redacted text]. The claimant asked who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen. I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please …”. As well as the claimant’s biggest concern being “[redacted text]”, he believed that it was “essential to our safety to keep MET security, [redacted text]”. The claimant said he had been told “[redacted text]”. The claimant said the biggest threat was “[redacted text]”. The claimant considered that the decision was being imposed upon him “without a sensible amount of consultation as some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first”. He suggested a 6-12 month review in order to establish sensible protection measures so that this new model was given a better chance of success. He would like “to see a full report of the current risk matrix please, and the justification that countries outside of the UK somehow change the international threat to us”.

On 18 February 2020, Sir Mark Sedwill wrote to Sir Edward Young in response to the email of 6 February 2020. Sir Richard Mottram received this correspondence on 25 February 2020. It refers to Sir Mark having met the claimant on 3 February 2020 and having received his letter on 10 February 2020. The letter said Sir Mark was reassured to understand that Sir Edward had begun to develop options for private provision for the relocation of the claimant and his wife to Canada. Thereafter “through RAVEC and in co-ordination with the Canadian authorities, the Government will continue to monitor the security of the Sussex family and ensure that their private security provider [redacted text]”.

Meanwhile, Sir Richard Mottram’s first witness statement says he liaised with Home Office officials regarding the commissioning of formal threat assessments in relation to the claimant. A threat assessment was provided and considered by Sir Richard at a meeting with Home Office officials on 11 February 2020. A further assessment was made available to him at the same time, regarding [redacted text]. Sir Richard says that the assessment he read on 11 February 2020 was produced on the basis of the law enforcement [redacted text] expertise available to the British Government. It was not the role of RAVEC or any of its members, including Sir Richard, to second-guess the content or conclusions of a threat assessment. That was a matter for the bodies and officials who have the expertise and access to the relevant information. When considering the protective security measures any Principal should receive, RAVEC accepts the conclusions and reasoning of the threat assessments available and then makes its decision as to the proportionate and appropriate measures which were informed by that assessment.

The threat assessments that Sir Richard Mottram saw in February 2020 were and remain “highly classified documents” and they have not been produced in connection with these proceedings. However, the threat statement came with a summary, which is said to have been formulated specifically to remove material of the greatest sensitivity. The witness statement records certain aspects of the summary. This includes that [redacted text]. Appended to the assessment was [redacted text].

Sir Richard Mottram says that he also had regard to other specific forms of threat assessments produced in relation to the claimant on 14 February 2020 in relation to [redacted text]; and on 19 February 2020, in relation to [redacted text]. These assessed the threat to the claimant as [redacted text] respectively. Again, these documents are said to be extremely sensitive. Sir Richard says that this description of the threat assessments was being provided “on an exceptional basis” for the purposes of considering the claim. Threat assessments would not ordinarily be disclosed, even to the Principal, and even on confidential terms.

Sir Richard Mottram’s first witness statement says that on 21 February 2020, [redacted text] informed Sir Richard Mottram that he had spoken to [redacted text] for the Royal Household (namely, [A]) who had passed on a request from Fiona Mcilwham, supported by Sir Edward Young, that Sir Richard should send a letter setting out RAVEC’s position on the rationale and timeframe for the removal of MPS protection. It was intimated that this would help to further official communication to the claimant as well as managing the transition of arrangements and associated planning. [redacted text] had made it clear to [A] that no final decision had yet been taken.

[redacted text]’s email of 21 February to Sir Richard Mottram records “[redacted text]” [[redacted text]] as wondering whether Sir Richard might wish to write to the Household to confirm that the claimant no longer fell within the RAVEC system and stating that [redacted text] and committing to run an RMB after, not before, that letter is issued. The email said that in broad terms “[redacted text]”. The purpose of the RMB “would be simply to inform the nature of the scale of any [redacted text] which the Household might wish to put in place”. [redacted text] felt that might help to ensure there was a [redacted text], which he understood the Cabinet Secretary wished to see. [redacted text] also asked whether RAVEC would be happy to commission threat assessments for the claimant and his wife on an annual basis, [redacted text].

Meanwhile, on 19 February 2020, [A] had written to Fiona Mcilwham to record that he had confirmed certain matters “with the Home Office team that support Sir Richard in his role as independent Chair of [RAVEC]”. The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT) requested updated intelligence assessments [redacted text]. This included “[redacted text]”. As part of the established process, the reports would be compiled and shared with the Home Office Deputy Head of Royalty and VIP, in his capacity as Chair of the Risk Management Board. Thereafter, the reports would be released to [A], and the Royal Household representative at all annual RMBs [redacted text]. A date for the RMB/Intelligence review on the claimant and his wife was to be confirmed. The Royal Household was pushing for the process to be completed as soon as possible, “certainly before mid-March … Going forward, mindful of geographic location, the request to Sir Richard and the Home Office (to the MET) will be that this active threat monitoring continues” for the claimant and his wife. Senior Metropolitan Police colleagues were said to be supportive. In terms of [redacted text], [A] said that [redacted text].

On 19 February 2020, Fiona Mcilwham forwarded both Sir Mark Sedwill’s response to Sir Edward Young’s letter of 6 February and the email just mentioned from [A]. Ms Mcilwham said this was to provide “reassurance that there will be active threat monitoring by UK plc regardless of the type of security arrangement in place”.

On 20 February, [A] wrote to the claimant to say that “working with Fiona, I am aware of the high-level policy discussions that have occurred, but do not work at a level where I can directly influence outcomes”. What [A] had been doing on the claimant’s behalf was “scoping what ‘best in class’ commercial security provision is available in Canada and the US”. The same day, the claimant replied to [A] to say that no one from government had actually told the claimant what the final decision was and that he had not received any reply to the questions that he believed he deserved to know “before making this next step”.

On 21 February 2020, [A] replied that, “working with the support of Fiona and Edward”, he had requested, via the Home Office, a formal letter to be written to the claimant from the Chair of RAVEC. In requesting that letter, [A] had verbally signposted the concerns the claimant had detailed and suggested to Ms Mcilwham that they should await the content of that letter before deciding how best to seek any additional detail if questions remained unanswered. Also on 21 February, the claimant replied to say that hopefully “Richard can answer the concerns and prove to me that someone has actually thought about the consequences without being punitive, which is how most of the decisions have been made in the last couple of months”.

On 24 February 2020, Sir Richard Mottram emailed [redacted text] to thank him for the “very helpful round-up”. So far as concerned [redacted text]’s approach to the Principals, Sir Richard was not sure that the approach was defensible. As had previously been discussed, Sir Richard had already set out the tests of public provision of security in his letter to Sir Edward Young about [redacted text]. This set out [redacted text]. The issue was [redacted text]. Given [redacted text], Sir Richard considered [redacted text]. What were unclear to Sir Richard were the [redacted text]. This suggested to Sir Richard that [redacted text]. If the Principals and the Royal Household [redacted text], then “they would [redacted text]”.

Sir Richard said that “if we follow this line of argument there would be no RMB but we would organise an exploratory meeting on these lines on a tripartite basis. I suggest we discuss tomorrow whether this approach stacks up and whether I would write to the Household before or after the tripartite meeting?”. On the commissioning of intelligence assessments, if the Principals were to spend most of their time overseas, then “it might be expected RMV would take the lead but [redacted text] and am happy for it to be a RAVEC responsibility”.

On 26 February, Sir Richard Mottram wrote to [redacted text], further to his email on 24 February and the discussion that had taken place on 25 February. In the light of these, Sir Richard had drafted a letter to Sir Edward Young, upon which he welcomed [redacted text]’s drafting points, as well as the points that others might have on it. Having agreed the text amongst themselves, they then “might show it to [redacted text]”.

The same day, [redacted text] wrote to Sir Richard Mottram to thank him for the letter. He agreed that this “has tied together most of the strands we were grappling with yesterday”. [redacted text] asked whether he was correct in understanding that “this means there will not be a further/final RMB for [the claimant] on the grounds this is no longer required given alternative government arrangements will be established for [redacted text]” [redacted text] said he suspected “we will be pushed for this clarity (not least by [redacted text])”.

On 27 February, Sir Richard Mottram replied to [redacted text]. As to the first of his queries, relating to the RMB, Sir Richard said “your understanding is correct”.

Sir Richard Mottram’s first witness statement states it was at this point clear in his mind that the claimant [redacted text] such as to justify inclusion in the RAVEC cohort. Accordingly, Sir Richard had to consider whether the claimant [redacted text]. However, it was possible that the claimant [redacted text]. [redacted text], Sir Richard envisaged putting in place a mechanism for liaison between the Royal Household acting on the claimant’s behalf, the police and the Home Office, to [redacted text]. It was on that basis he began drafting a letter along those lines on 25 February 2020.

As regards RMB assessments, the witness statement explains that one consequence in the change of the claimant’s role and his decision to live mainly abroad was that the assessment of risk that the RMB had conducted in respect of the claimant in April 2019 had been overtaken by events. Moreover, the methodology underpinning the assessments of the RMB [redacted text]. Sir Richard Mottram ultimately saw no merit, therefore, in conducting a formal RMB process for the claimant. The decision to consider the case for [redacted text] was, in Sir Richard’s view, a flexible and tailored approach, which better matched the claimant’s revised circumstances.

Sir Richard states that the position he reached in the decision of 28 February was his own. He did not reach it because the Cabinet Secretary had reached a similar view. Had the Cabinet Secretary expressed a position with which Sir Richard disagreed, as Chair of RAVEC Sir Richard would have taken the position that he felt was right. As it was, however, both reached the view that a change in the security position was appropriate. Sir Richard considers this was because Sir Richard and the Cabinet Secretary were both deeply familiar with the applicable framework and the handling of different cases over many years. Sir Richard also believes that RAVEC’s decision was in fact more favourable to the claimant than that of the RMV (as regards the position whilst the claimant was outside Great Britain). This was because RAVEC’s decision [redacted text].

In the course of preparing his first witness statement, Sir Richard Mottram says that he had seen an email to [redacted text] from [A], dated 28 February 2020, copied to Ms Mcilwham, confirming receipt of the decision letter and that it would be passed to the claimant via his Private Office.

An email of 2 March 2020 from Sir Richard Mottram to (amongst others) [redacted text] describes a meeting Sir Richard had that day with Sir Edward Young. One topic was the decision of 28 February. The discussion included the issue of arrangements that needed to be put in place regarding Canada. There was then a brief discussion about [redacted text]. Sir Richard asked why this issue was being raised. Sir Edward said that he believed the comparison was being drawn by friends of the claimant, who had suggested to him that he was being treated more harshly than [redacted text]. Sir Richard replied that this was to misunderstand [redacted text]. Sir Richard said that RAVEC was planning to look at [redacted text]. There was said to be “no suggestion that the Palace would pursue this [redacted text] argument further”.

On 6 March 2020, Fiona Mcilwham wrote to Sir Mark Sedwill on the claimant’s behalf. Sir Richard Mottram was sent a copy of that letter, along with a covering email on 9 March from Ms Mcilwham drawing attention to its contents. The letter referred to the statement made by the Canadian Government about security arrangements for the claimant and his family. It said that the claimant would be grateful to know in more detail how the current threat assessment was reached. Although the letter of 28 February set out some of the criteria that guided RAVEC’s recommendations, Ms Mcilwham said it did not state whether RAVEC considered fully [redacted text]. The claimant asked what RAVEC thought was the risk from [redacted text]. The claimant also noted that his security [redacted text], which he believed was the wrong way around. He asked whether RAVEC could, with the upmost (sic) discretion, undertake a revised threat assessment, taking account of this possibility. In his first witness statement, Sir Richard Mottram says that there was nothing in this letter which caused him any concern that he should revisit the decision of 28 February.

Sir Mark Sedwill wrote to Sir Edward Young on 12 March 2020, setting out the position of the RMV in relation to security provision abroad. The letter also noted that RAVEC’s decision of 28 February confirmed that RAVEC would continue to monitor the security of the Sussex family within Great Britain including through periodic threat assessments. Should anything change in terms of specific threat, including [redacted text], this would be communicated to the Home Office through established channels with the police and [redacted text] and be actioned as necessary.

The claimant and his family relocated from Vancouver, Canada to California, USA on 14 March 2020.

An email of 18 March 2020 from [A] to Fiona Mcilwham described a meeting he had had with the Home Office. UK police support would involve a process whereby the claimant’s Private Office, with support from the Royal Household, would provide events/function detail for review. This would be an electronic submissions process, working to a 28 days’ notice schedule, to allow sufficient time for the necessary assessments to be made. [redacted text]. [A] said that he was “confident that it will work, but less certain or clear on what outcomes can be expected … Doing some test cases … would be a good way to stand up the necessary data flows and agree templates etc”.

A short formal letter detailing these arrangements was sent by [redacted text] to [A] on 20 March 2020. This letter was not seen by the claimant. This was because the Royal Household requested stronger language to be included so that, according to Sir Richard Mottram, there was greater clarity on the future approach. This resulted in a letter of 23 March 2020 from [redacted text] to [A]. The foot of the letter records that [redacted text] was writing as “Secretary of RAVEC”. Although the letter was not signed, it appears that the letter was forwarded by email on 23 March by [A] to Ms Mcilwham. The letter says that, as discussed, in cases where augmented publicly funded security arrangements were being sought for specific engagements in Great Britain, the RAVEC Secretariat would require notification from the Royal Household no fewer than 28 days in advance. The Secretariat would then consider that request, consulting with other parts of government where appropriate and in consultation with the Chair of RAVEC where applicable. Requests would be considered on the basis of the parameters set out in Sir Richard Mottram’s letter of 28 February. For clarity, the letter included an explanation that there was no basis for publicly-funded security support [redacted text]. The letter of 23 March suggested that for planning purposes it would be prudent to assume there would be [redacted text] but that would be reviewed by exception [redacted text] and requested through the Queen’s Private Office.

In an email to the claimant of 27 March 2020, [A] recommended that, with the policy parameters fixed in the RAVEC and Cabinet Secretary letters, “test case” trips and events should be provided for the Home Office and Cabinet Office to review. This was put forward with the aim of seeking “a refined and improved judgment on future [redacted text]”.

On or around 28 March 2020, the claimant responded to [A], stating that he was not aware that the policy parameters were fixed and he thought the security arrangements were to be determined in “test trips”. The claimant said that he would “like them to provide an example of where someone else has [redacted text]. The obvious difference aside from that is the fact that I was born into this and the threat will never decrease because of my status regarding the Family”.

At this point, it is necessary to refer in some detail to the terms of reference of RAVEC. The terms which were current at the time of the decision of 28 February 2020 were those of 2017. Under the heading “Role”, it is explained that RAVEC is responsible for which individuals should receive vulnerability mitigation and/or protection measures at public expense and to what level. The Home Secretary is responsible and accountable to Parliament for national security, including protection measures. The Home Secretary delegates decision making responsibility for which individuals should receive the mitigation and/or protection measures at public expense to an independent Chair of RAVEC. The Chair is appointed by the Home Office Permanent Secretary following consultation with the Cabinet Secretary and the Private Secretary to HM the Queen.

The Chair is responsible for decisions on vulnerability and protection measures for individuals present in England, Wales and Scotland. Different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland. The Chair of RAVEC is the owner of any residual risk arising from decisions on who should or should not receive the relevant mitigation/protection measures [redacted text]. Any decisions “will reflect the risk tolerance that the Chair is willing to accept, having consulted with the Home Secretary on the Government’s risk appetite and having taken into account [RAVEC] members’ views of what would represent a proportionate response to the assessed risk faced by individuals”.

[redacted text] will always be provided to the [redacted text]. The Home Secretary and RAVEC has also agreed that [redacted text] those in the immediate line of succession to the throne. [redacted text].

Under the heading “Membership”, the terms of reference state that membership of RAVEC comprises the Private Secretary to HM the Queen, the Master of HRH the Prince of Wales’ Household, the Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, Metropolitan Police Service, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, Metropolitan Police Service, the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, Home Office, the Deputy Director, National Security Secretariat, Cabinet Office (in their role as Chair of the RMV) and the Head of Protective Security Section, Protect and Prepare Unit OSCT (in their role as Secretary to RAVEC). The Executive Committee of RAVEC will meet at least twice a year in full session but other meetings will be held as and when required, at the discretion of the Chair.

Under the heading “Responsibilities” the Royal Household will provide Royal representation and input, advising the Chair on any specific matters relating to members of the Royal Family. This is said to help to inform the Chair’s decision on whether any vulnerability mitigation and/or protection measures are appropriate at public expense.

Under the heading “The role of the Police Service”, the terms of reference state that the Metropolitan Police Service is the national police lead for vulnerability mitigation and protection.

Under the heading “The role of the Home Office”, it is said that the Home Office is the national lead for the formulation of policy on the protection of Royalty and public figures in England, Wales and Scotland. The policy seeks to ensure the continued and effective assessment of threat and evaluation of risk in order to determine who requires any form of vulnerability mitigation or protection and then ensuring its proportionate delivery for those who are deemed to require it. In the event of serious harm to a protected Principal, the Home Secretary with the support of the Prime Minister, will accept Ministerial accountability for any failure. The Protective Security Section within the Protect and Prepare Unit leads for the Home Office on all issues relating to the vulnerability mitigation and protection of Royal and public figures. The Home Office is responsible for representing the interests of public figures.

Under the heading “The role of Cabinet Office”, the terms of reference state that the Cabinet Office National Security Secretariat is responsible for the policy governing overseas visits and that they chair the RMV. The Cabinet Office will attend RAVEC meetings to ensure [redacted text] and to be kept informed of domestic decision making.

Under the heading “Key tasks”, paragraphs 20 to 23 of the terms of reference are as follows:-

“20.

The Executive Committee will:

•

Exercise the national policy on the provision and delivery of vulnerability mitigation and protection measures for members of the Royal Family and public figures.

•

Determine on an annual basis (or more frequently as necessary), a set of reasonable worst-case scenarios against which potential threats to an individual will be assessed, drawing on the advice of [redacted text].

•

Evaluate the risk analysis conducted by the Risk Management Board in order to determine which individuals, [redacted text], should receive vulnerability mitigation and/or protection measures. [redacted text].

•

At a minimum, review annually arrangements that have been agreed and put in place to ensure they remain commensurate to threat and risk.

•

Promote effective relationships between all parties involved in the delivery of vulnerability mitigation and protection measures.

21.

The Executive Committee’s risk evaluation is based on the Risk Management Board’s risk analysis, but takes into account judgements about the risk appetite of Government. This is based on [redacted text].

22.

The Chair of the Executive Committee or the Chair of the Risk Management Board will write to, or brief and then follow up in writing, any individual who has been through the risk assessment process in order to [redacted text]. This will include providing [redacted text]. The Chair will articulate what measures will be provided [redacted text].

23.

If an individual who falls within the remit [of] the Executive Committee, and is in receipt of vulnerability mitigation and/or protection measures, wishes to discuss any aspects of their arrangements it will be for the individual to raise this with the Chair of the Executive Committee.”

Although Sir Richard Mottram’s first witness statement says he was involved in their creation, the 2021 terms of reference came into force in June 2021, after Sir Richard had been succeeded as the Chair of RAVEC by [the Current Chair]. The 2021 terms of reference make different provision for the role of the Chair. Instead of the Chair being responsible for decisions on vulnerability mitigation and protection measures and being the owner of any residual risk arising from decisions on who should or should not receive vulnerability mitigation and/or protection measures [redacted text], the 2021 terms refer to the Chair’s primary role as being to assist the Committee and to promote productive working relationships within the Committee, seeing actively and constructively to achieve consensus in the work of the Committee. At Annex A (Process of RAVEC decision-making outside regular meeting cycle), it is said that if the Committee cannot reach an agreed view, the Chair will consider any comments and objections and will make a final decision.

Paragraph 4 of the 2021 terms of reference reads as follows:-

“4.

Throughout this document, reference will be made to risk, which for the purposes of RAVEC’s decision-making brings together a number of factors in the following way:

(i)

capability + intent = threat

(ii)

Threat + vulnerability = likelihood

(iii)

Likelihood + impact = risk”.

Under the heading “Key tasks”, the first bullet point now refers to the Executive Committee evaluating the risk analysis conducted by the Risk Management Board in order to determine which individuals should receive protective security measures proportionate to the assessed risk.

As well as exhibiting RAVEC’s terms of reference, Sir Richard Mottram’s first witness statement exhibits an extract from the Government’s 2019 National Risk Assessment. Sir Richard states that RAVEC operates within the framework of the National Risk Assessment, which identifies major hazards and threats and assesses the risks involved based upon their likelihood and impact. The extract concerns “High profile assassination”. It describes the likely public reaction to a successful attack on a high-profile public figure, [redacted text]. The subject of risk assessment is addressed in the first witness statement of Shaun Hipgrave. As mentioned above, he is Director of Protect and Prepare, formerly known as the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism. The Royalty, VIP and MP security unit sits within Mr Hipgrave’s Directorate. That unit provides the secretariat to RAVEC.

Mr Hipgrave explains that [redacted text]. Mr Hipgrave says it is not the role of the RMB to question or second guess the assessment level, which may differ as between different types of threat.

Mr Hipgrave says that one important consideration for all decisions on the protective security to be provided to Principals in RAVEC is the risk analysis which is completed for RAVEC by the RMB. The RMB provides RAVEC with expert advice in respect of the threat picture, the risks faced and any proposed mitigation of those risks. Whilst the RMB analysis forms part of RAVEC’s wider evaluation of risk, ultimately, Mr Hipgrave says, the matter is for RAVEC. The RMB is chaired by a Home Office official within the Royalty, VIP and MP Security Unit. As we have seen, at the relevant time that was [redacted text].

Mr Hipgrave explains that the RMB does not consider [redacted text] or by attempts to intrude on the privacy of a Principal, [redacted text]. Mr Hipgrave considers that last exclusion to be an important one, given the significance of a free press and freedom of expression, which “will inevitably give rise to tensions with individual privacy which is not for RAVEC, or the Government to seek to resolve”.

The membership of the RMB includes relevant officials of the Home Office, the Royal Household, the Metropolitan Police Service and representatives of any specialist law enforcement body with relevant threat and risk information to provide. The precise details are, Mr Hipgrave says, extremely sensitive and it would not be appropriate, even with the confidentiality restrictions that exist in the present proceedings, to set out in any further detail the membership or the precise nature of the threat assessments carried out by the RMB. It is, he says, sufficient to note that the assessments look to address the full range of potential threats, [redacted text]. The RMB may be invited by RAVEC to consider risk assessing any individual for their potential inclusion within the RAVEC cohort. Such invitations are invariably driven by [redacted text]. The basic pre-requisites for consideration for inclusion within the RAVEC cohort are whether [redacted text]. Mr Hipgrave says that these are not “tick box” tests and meeting them does not guarantee entry into the RAVEC cohort. He considers, however, that they are helpfully indicative of the type of cases which would lead RAVEC to scrutinise carefully whether the individual ought to be included within the cohort.

The RMB had previously used a hierarchy where members of the existing cohort sat within their applicable institution, [redacted text]. This scoring process is, however, no longer used.

The assessments of threat provided to the RMB include consideration against a list of the most likely reasonable worst-case scenarios which are approved by RAVEC annually. This allows the RMB to reach an overall view of the threat potential. The purpose of the exercise is not to eliminate all risk to all individuals, as that would be impossible and will involve the extension of protective security to every individual in the country. The exercise is always judgmental and evaluative rather than mechanistic.

Mr Hipgrave says that the RMB will also consider the degree of impact of any successful attack by reference to a range of indicators. The precise details of these indicators are, again, extremely sensitive. A candid overview, however, would demonstrate that the indicators relate to the following broad concepts of impact:-[redacted text].

The RMB also takes into account [redacted text]. All of these matters are put together by the RMB to create a consolidated risk profile for the individual comprising threat, impact of a successful attack and risk. They will also include a recommendation for protective security mitigation.

In general, Mr Hipgrave says it is expected that the RMB will consider each Principal within the RAVEC cohort annually to inform RAVEC decision-making.

Mr Hipgrave says that, as discussed in Sir Richard Mottram’s statement, there are a small number of individuals who have left the RAVEC cohort but in respect of which RAVEC has agreed to continue [redacted text]. This means, according to Mr Hipgrave, that [redacted text] and a RMB assessment can be undertaken to carry out more detailed work, if required.

The [redacted text] RMB assessment on the claimant was completed on 23 April 2019. It set out a “[redacted text]” with [redacted text]. The RMB recommendation was for [redacted text] for the claimant.

A paper called “RAVEC Evaluation Criteria” of 27 May 2021, prepared by the RVIP and MP Security Unit, Homeland Security, describes RAVEC’s function as being to make decisions on which individuals should be in receipt of publicly-funded security measures and the nature of such measures. It is said to do so by evaluating the risk assessment provided by the associated RMB and any security recommendations the RMB might make. This process is said to be in line with a review of 2016 by John Tesh entitled “Risk Assessment and Decision Making Review of Royalty and VIP Protection”.

The paper says that there is, however, no formally documented position that underpins what criteria should be taken into account as part of the evaluation process. Clarifying the framework for evaluation is said to provide a firmer basis for ensuring that decision making processes are applied in a consistent and transparent manner. The document notes that RAVEC’s terms of reference have been significantly updated. They include as one of RAVEC’s key tasks “a requirement that evaluation criteria be developed and kept under ongoing review”. The document says that this “paper sets out a proposed approach to fulfilling that requirement”.

The paper recommends that RAVEC formally adopts the evaluation criteria set out in the Tesh Review (I record here that this Review has not been adduced by the defendant in the present proceedings, although it was requested by the claimant). There follows a description of “risk analysis”, said to be an inventory of what the risks are, including impact and likelihood; and “risk evaluation”, which is said to be a policy-making process in which social values and risk tolerance levels are factored in by Ministers and officials, in order to decide about the objectives of policy, what measures can or must be taken to achieve those objectives and whether the residual risk is tolerable. The paper then expands on these propositions.

Mr Hipgrave’s first witness statement deals with an element of the RAVEC cohort that he describes as the Other VIP Category. It is necessary to explain more about this so-called category. The Other VIP Category sits alongside what Mr Hipgrave describes as the Role-Based Category and the Occasional Category. That last category concerns Principals who [redacted text]. The majority of the RAVEC cohort fall into the Role-Based Category because they [redacted text]. For example, [redacted text]. For Royal Principals, [redacted text]. Mr Hipgrave says that ultimately whether you are a member of the Royal Family [redacted text]. That position will be conveyed to RAVEC by the Royal Household.

The Other VIP Category comprises a smaller number of individuals, [redacted text]. They are included within the RAVEC cohort because of the facts peculiar to each individual, [redacted text]. The Other VIP Category is, Mr Hipgrave says, ultimately determined by reference to the Government’s risk appetite; that is to say, the level of exposure to risk that is considered tolerable and justifiable by Ministers.

In his confidential schedule to his first witness statement, Mr Hipgrave states that there are [redacted text] within the Other VIP Category. [redacted text].

[redacted text]

In addition to [redacted text], Mr Hipgrave says that [redacted text].

At paragraph 31 of his first witness statement Mr Hipgrave emphasises that the three categories he describes (Role-based, Other VIP and Occasional) are not labels that RAVEC uses on a day to day basis and that RAVEC does not formally categorise Principals in this or any other way. He had formulated the labels or categories in order to help to explain the makeup of the cohort for the assistance of the court.

The claimant visited the United Kingdom in April and June 2021, April, June and September 2022 and March, May and June 2023. It is common ground between the parties that, if the decision of 28 February 2020 is unlawful, then decisions made in relation to security arrangements for these visits by the claimant would also be unlawful because they were made under the process set out in the 2020 decision. The claimant, however, also seeks to make specific challenges in relation to the visits of June 2021 and March, May and June 2023.

In February 2021, the late Duke of Edinburgh’s health was declining. On 20 February 2021, [A] emailed the Home Office regarding the UK security provision for the claimant in respect of [redacted text] security for the claimant. [A] formally requested “an emergency RMB on Monday to inform decision-making and provide clarity to” the claimant. On 21 February 2021, [redacted text] of the Home Office replied, saying that he and [A] had agreed separately that it would be useful to speak the following day. Also on 21 February, Lucy D’Orsi of the Metropolitan Police wrote regarding the claimant’s position. She said that the claimant should be dealt with under the inward visitor process and that Sir Richard Mottram did not have involvement in that, as far as she was aware. She was also not aware that [redacted text] and she was “not convinced we need an RMB process as we do not do that for incoming visitors do we?”.

On 10 April 2021, an individual who for the purposes of these proceedings is called X emailed [A]. X is one of the individuals who provides the claimant and his family with security in the US. X requested a threat and risk assessment with the most up-to-date information. X’s preference was to have this done prior to their departure that evening but if that were too short a timeframe, X would need it by the time the claimant [redacted text]. The same day, [A] replied that he was confident that in line with established procedures, [redacted text] the following day. On 11 April 2021, [A] wrote to the Metropolitan Police to thank them for their assistance and to show a draft of what he intended to give to the claimant to explain how this specific trip had been risk assessed.

According to Mr Hipgrave’s first witness statement, he regarded [A]’s reference to “an emergency RMB” as an incorrect use of terminology. In actuality what was being requested was an emergency meeting between the three relevant organisations to discuss options so that senior members of the tripartite could make decisions about how to proceed. Mr Hipgrave agrees with the observation that an RMB would not be appropriate because the claimant’s visit to attend the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh was to be covered using the Inward Visitor Protection Policy (IVPP) which is created to deal with the protective security arrangements for international visitors to the United Kingdom. Under it, specific consideration could be given to national interest cases where protection for specific and clearly defined visits could be justified. Mr Hipgrave said that he supported the use of IVPP in principle on this occasion because it was a pragmatic and compassionate solution to the problem that RAVEC was not a suitable vehicle to make decisions with fewer than 28 days’ notice, in a context such as the Duke’s passing, where such notice was not possible. A threat assessment was not carried out in respect of the claimant with regard to the use of the IVPP because [redacted text]. In the event, the claimant was covered by the IVPP, which meant [redacted text].

In early June 2021, X, on behalf of the claimant, began to discuss a visit that the claimant was planning for June and July. One purpose of the visit was the unveiling of a statue in the gardens of Kensington Palace in honour of Diana, Princess of Wales.

In the witness statement of X, he refers to “Teams” calls with [A] for the Royal Household. Mr Hipgrave says that RAVEC was not aware of these calls or their content. The first email correspondence of which Mr Hipgrave is aware was between the Home Office and [A] on 7 June 2021. A Home Office official made a proposal to [A] which it was emphasised had not yet been put to the Chair of RAVEC. In this email, the proposal was [redacted text]. Mr Hipgrave says [redacted text].

On 10 June 2021, a meeting took place between officials to discuss the proposed mandate to be issued by RAVEC [redacted text]. Mr Hipgrave says that at this point no wider itinerary for the claimant was known. There were then emails between [A] and X, who on 11 June 2021 said that the claimant would also be attending an event called WellChild on 30 June 2021 at Kew Gardens. Mr Hipgrave says that this email of 11 June 2021 was the first time that anyone on behalf of the claimant had identified for RAVEC’s purposes the details of the event to be held on 30 June 2021. This was 19 days before the event, rather the minimum 28 days required by RAVEC.

On 16 July 2021, [the Current Chair], now Chair of RAVEC, invited Mr Hipgrave to a video call that was due to take place on 18 June 2021 in order “to agree an approach for [the claimant’s] [redacted text] and also discuss the way forward for when [the claimant] and family come to the UK in the future”. In advance of the call, Mr Hipgrave was provided with a briefing note. This included a proposed mandate written by Home Office officials and approved as a draft for discussion by RAVEC’s Chair. Each of the individuals attending the meeting had, Mr Hipgrave says, been made aware of the proposed mandate before the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, the proposed mandate was also set out.

The proposed mandate was said to be based on the claimant’s itinerary as provided in draft by the Royal Household. [redacted text]. The mandate provided for [redacted text]. So far as the Kew Gardens event was concerned, the document stated that [redacted text]. It was stated that as per Sir Richard Mottram’s letter of February 2020, RAVEC [redacted text]. That position was believed to be supported by the Royal Household “although there is unease around this course of action”. In line with Sir Richard Mottram’s letter and discussion with the Royal Household, [redacted text].

The document also contained bullet points under the heading “Future visits from [the claimant] and family”. It was said that once the Royal Household’s position on future visits was clear, the Home Office intended to codify the arrangements outside of the usual process, with a label to cover the Principal and his family, such as “exceptional membership”. Under the heading “Background”, it was said that the claimant’s historic threat assessments and current profile had been considered, as well as views of security professionals in the police and Royal Household.

On 24 June 2021, RAVEC’s Chair wrote to the Executive Committee members concerning the protective security arrangements for the claimant for his visit. The letter said that the arrangements were considered to be a proportionate package that was in line with RAVEC’s position as set out in Sir Richard Mottram’s letter of 28 February 2020 and Mr Hipgrave’s letter to [A] on 20 May 2021. The approach taken for protective security on this trip provided, the letter said, a potential model to be applied for future visits of the Principal and his family. For the purposes of such visits, the Principal was in effect considered an “exceptional member” of the RAVEC cohort.

On the evening of 24 June, the claimant’s legal representatives, Schillings, wrote to [A] raising concerns about the approach taken by RAVEC. The letter from Schillings stated that they were aware of what future arrangements were set out by the then Chairman of RAVEC and the then Cabinet Secretary in February and March 2020 and that “we reserve our position on these statements of policy for now”. The urgent issue, raised in the letter, was the need to resolve security cover for the claimant’s “imminent visit to the UK”. The letter contended that although the claimant’s role may have changed, the risks he carried had definitely not. [redacted text]. The letter queried why RAVEC was taking the view it did on this event when “[redacted text]”.

Mr Hipgrave says that the June decision letter was not issued on 24 June but held back for reconsideration at an urgent meeting the following morning. This telephone meeting with RAVEC’s Chair took place on 25 June. The Chair was provided with a copy of Sir Richard Mottram’s letter of 28 February 2020. He was also given a copy of the threat assessment in respect of the claimant which had been carried out in order to inform the February 2020 decision. He was also given a 2021 “[redacted text]”, which was a document commissioned from [redacted text] in order to assist the decision making earlier in 2021. It was agreed at the telephone meeting that the letter would be sent to the claimant and his solicitor. RAVEC considered the representations made on behalf of the claimant. It reached the assessment that [redacted text] compared with that discussed on 18 June. Accordingly, a change in position was not appropriate.

After further communications from Schillings in which, amongst other matters, they highlighted media awareness of the charity event, Mr Hipgrave sent Mr Robinson of Schillings a letter dated 29 June 2021. In this letter, Mr Hipgrave stated that the concerns mentioned had been considered and that “we take the decisions around protected security for the Duke extremely seriously”. The significance the Home Office attaches to protective security was “reflected in the long-established [RAVEC], which is responsible for carefully considering the important and complex issues regarding decisions on protective security for certain individuals”. The letter went on:-

“You noted in your letter that you have seen the arrangements set out in previous correspondence from early 2020 and April 2021, which deals with the measures in place leading up to and following the point at which the Duke ceased to be a working member of the Royal Family residing in Great Britain. The decisions regarding the Duke’s security for this visit to Great Britain are consistent with the positions taken in those letters.

Correspondence of February 2020 stated that [redacted text].

Following the description of the protective security measures to be provided for the visit, the letter said that “the package offered to the Duke, as described above, constitutes a bespoke security package that takes account of the particular, unique facts and circumstances at play. The tailored nature of the package demonstrates the care and consideration that has been involved in ensuring that appropriate measures are taken for this visit”. The letter said that such decisions and assessments of threat and risk were made following “further discussion and consultation with partners, which look at a range of factors when considering the appropriate [redacted text] protection afforded to a given individual”. The letter ended as follows:-

“It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the protective security measures in place for any other individual, but to be clear, while one factor to be taken into account is the way in which other members of the cohort requiring [redacted text] protective security are treated, we consider each case on its own facts. Those provided with publicly funded protective security and the nature of the measures in place, are kept under regular review to ensure the allocation of police resource is fair, consistent and appropriate”.

Schillings responded on 1 July. They asked whether a formal threat assessment had been made for the claimant, in light of his change of circumstances. Mr Hipgrave’s reply of the same day was that it was not possible to share details of threat assessments with private persons in receipt of protective security or their representatives, due to the classification of that material. Reference was made to the letter of 28 February 2020, in which it was said that threat assessments were commissioned for the claimant [redacted text] at that time. As such, it was right at that juncture to review his security arrangements. It was repeated that [redacted text].

In his witness statement, X describes transportation to the WellChild awards event at Kew on 30 June 2021. X says that it was unsatisfactory and dangerous. [redacted text]. X says that they encountered difficulties leaving the WellChild Awards event. Paparazzi ambushed the vehicle at several points during their return, which posed a risk to the claimant both physical and mentally. Being cornered by the paparazzi made them feel like “sitting ducks”. X says that “we all know that the Duke’s mother died at least partly as a result of the gross negligence of the paparazzi following her vehicle”. On 3 July 2021, X wrote an email describing the journey in some detail. Amongst other things, X described [redacted text]. Given that [redacted text]. This produced even more interest in the vehicle.

In response to the claimant’s criticisms of the arrangements made by RAVEC for the claimant’s visit in June/July 2021, Mr Hipgrave says it is important to reiterate that this was the first occasion on which RAVEC had implemented the 2020 decision to a visit by the claimant, in a context which [redacted text]. It was therefore “always likely to take longer than … it … has in response to future requests”. The relevant details of the trip were not provided until 11 June 2021, substantially less than the 28 day notice period. The claimant, through his team, made repeated representations as to his concerns and preferences, which RAVEC continually considered and reconsidered. Given it was the first visit to Great Britain for the claimant with his private security support, Mr Hipgrave considers that may have caused the claimant and his team to [redacted text].

The Home Office had been notified on 3 August 2022 that the claimant and his wife and children would be visiting the United Kingdom between 2 and 11 September 2022. The itinerary did not [redacted text]. On 10 August 2022, RAVEC met to decide what protective security, if any, should be provided. A letter outlining RAVEC’s decision was sent to the Private Secretary to the Sovereign, since the request for protective security had come through the Royal Household. The letter of 12 August was from the Chair of RAVEC to Sir Edward Young. It explained that [redacted text].

On 20 August 2022, Schillings wrote to say that the proposed security arrangements for the September visit were not lawful and that [redacted text] was plainly inadequate. It was also stated that the August decision of RAVEC was taken prior to the public event announcements, made on 15 August 2022, concerning events that the claimant would attend whilst in the United Kingdom. It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that this would require RAVEC to reconsider its decision. In his statement, Mr Hipgrave denies it was incorrect to suggest that RAVEC did not know on 10 August 2022 that the events would be made public and the time at which this would happen.

The response from the Government Legal Department to Schillings on 2 September 2022 stated that RAVEC did not consider it necessary or appropriate to reconsider the August decision. In the meantime, Schillings had written on 1 September 2022 to request that the Chair of RAVEC speak personally to the claimant. That request was granted. A video conference took place that day, with the claimant outlining his desire generally for [redacted text]. On 3 September 2022, Mr Hipgrave wrote to Schillings to say that the Chair of RAVEC had decided that the August 2022 decision remained appropriate. Mr Hipgrave is not aware of any security incidents arising in relation to the claimant during the period of his visit up to 8 September 2022.

In connection with the charitable event attended by the claimant in Manchester on 5 September 2022, [redacted text]. The claimant raised concerns with [redacted text] about his travel by train to Manchester because of his proximity to the public. [redacted text].

Following the public announcement by the doctors to Her Late Majesty the Queen on 8 September 2022 concerning her health, the Chair of RAVEC wrote to the Sovereign’s Private Secretary to confirm that [redacted text]. This approach reflected the compassionate grounds which had been applied in April 2021 in respect of the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh. Following the death of Her Late Majesty, RAVEC [redacted text].

The claimant was in the United Kingdom between 26-31 March 2023 in order to attend a hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice in Various Claimants vAssociated Newspapers Limited (claim number KB-2022-003317). The claimant’s Director of European Security emailed [A] “in accordance with the agreed procedure” to provide “formal notice of the Duke of Sussex’s travel to the United Kingdom from 26 March to 31 March 2023”. In light of various matters, including that he was the son of King Charles III, a brother of the Prince of Wales, and that Al Qaeda had recently called for the claimant to be killed, the Director of European Security said that the claimant [redacted text]. On 10 March 2023, [redacted text], the Deputy Director of Royalty, VIP and MP Security Unit Homeland Security, wrote to say that RAVEC would meet to determine what protective security arrangements should be mandated for the visit. Without pre-empting that decision, [redacted text] said “it is clear that the proposed visit [redacted text]. If the Duke wishes to [redacted text].

On 21 March 2023, the Chair of RAVEC wrote to explain that, following the RAVEC meeting on 20 March, certain security arrangements had been made. These were set out in the letter, which recorded the fact that [redacted text]. Schillings wrote on 23 March 2023 to the Chair of RAVEC. Much of this letter was concerned with issues relating to the (by now extant) judicial review. However, the letter also said that the claimant “has serious concerns not only regarding his own welfare, but also the security and safety of others who will, given the nature of a courtroom and its environs, be within close proximity”. On 25 March 2023, the Government Legal Department replied, stating that the claimant’s attendance at the Royal Courts of Justice “[redacted text]”.

The claimant was in the United Kingdom between 5 and 6 May 2023, to attend the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. On 27 April 2023, the Chair of RAVEC wrote to explain [redacted text]. This elicited a response from Schillings on 28 April 2023. The claimant was said to be concerned that RAVEC had [redacted text].

On 2 May 2023, the Government Legal Department wrote to say that RAVEC had specifically considered [redacted text]. RAVEC considered that the package set out in the letter of 27 April 2023 constituted the appropriate balance, [redacted text]. That balance was also consistent with the decisions RAVEC had previously taken in relation to the claimant, including in relation to his visit for the Platinum Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in May 2022.

The claimant was in the United Kingdom between 4 and 8 June 2023 in order to provide evidence at the trial in the case of HRH the Duke of Sussex v Mirror GroupNews Ltd (claim number BL-2009-0001787) at the Royal Courts of Justice (Rolls Building). Those concerned with providing security to the claimant wrote to [A] to say that “In accordance with the agreed procedure, we write to provide you with formal notice” of the claimant’s visit to the United Kingdom from 4 to 8 June. It was said that the claimant’s presence at the Royal Courts of Justice in March 2023 had attracted significant international media attention, with large numbers of people attending the court proceedings and congregating outside the building. RAVEC was requested to provide a security package “that is proportionate to the heightened threat the Duke, and those around him, face at this time, and the particular security vulnerabilities of his attendance at court”. That should include but not be limited to “[redacted text]”.

On 23 May 2023, the Chair of RAVEC wrote to give details of the protective security arrangements that RAVEC had agreed on 22 May. [redacted text]. The letter explained that RAVEC’s remit [redacted text]. Reference was made to the [redacted text]. The Chair said that, [redacted text], he understood the [redacted text].

Schillings responded by means of a letter dated 26 May 2023 to the Government Legal Department. The letter expressed the concern of the claimant that “as with prior trips, the proposed protected security arrangements for the June trip are, again, inadequate, inappropriate and ineffective”. Reference was made to an incident in New York City on 16 May. [redacted text]. The letter of 26 May took issue with the statement in the letter from the RAVEC Chair of 23 May that whilst [redacted text]. The letter from Schillings of 26 May said that it was categorically wrong and also deeply offensive to diminish the gravity of the incident by defining it as being about “privacy”. [redacted text].

On 2 June 2023, the Government Legal Department replied. It said that RAVEC did not agree with the general concern expressed on behalf of the claimant, that the proposed protective security arrangements were inadequate, inappropriate or ineffective. The decision to provide [redacted text] was consistent with the approach adopted on previous occasions over the last two years, [redacted text]. RAVEC had taken into account [redacted text] and was briefed by [redacted text]. [redacted text], it was understood that [redacted text].

On the last day of the hearing before me, Ms Fatima KC produced a copy of a letter dated December 6 2023 from the Chief of Intelligence in the New York City Police Department. The letter is addressed to the Chief Superintendent OCU Commander Royalty and Speciality Protection. The Chief of Intelligence says that he wishes to make the Chief Superintendent “aware of certain changes to the security posture that will be afforded to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in light of the security incident that took place on May 16 2023 in New York City”. The letter says that a thorough review of the incident had taken place and although no formal charges were brought against the parties involved at the time “we did conclude that the behaviour in question was reckless. As a result, [redacted text], beginning with an upcoming trip in the current weeks”. The investigation had found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question. They had operated vehicles, scooters and bicycles in a manner that forced the security team, which included the NYPD lead car, to take evasive actions on several occasions and a circuitous route to avoid being struck by pursuing vehicles or trapped on side blocks. The conclusion was that there was sufficient evidence to arrest two individuals for reckless endangerment. [redacted text].

The present judicial review claim was filed on 20 September 2021. The grounds of claim were amended pursuant to an order dated 22 July 2022 and re-amended pursuant to an order of mine, shortly before the hearing. The detailed grounds of resistance have, likewise, been amended.

In their present form, the grounds of challenge can be summarised as follows. Ground 2 contends that there has been a failure to take account of material considerations, in making the decision of 28 February 2020. The claimant argues that RAVEC should have considered the impact that a successful attack on him would have, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the Royal Family and his ongoing charity work and service to the public. RAVEC should have considered, in particular, the impact on the United Kingdom’s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant. The issue of “impact” plainly involved having regard to the tragic circumstances in which the claimant’s mother lost her life and the impact of that loss felt across the world. The nature of the [redacted text]. The claimant also has [redacted text]. These considerations were so obviously material that it was irrational not to take them into account.

Ground 3 contends that the security arrangements described in the decision of 28 February 2020 were unreasonable. A decision may be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223), either because it is outside the range of reasonable responses open to the decision maker or because of a demonstrable flaw in the process by which the decision was reached. Both of these limbs are relied on by the claimant. RAVEC should not have treated the claimant’s [redacted text] as being essentially determinative of whether the claimant should get protective security. RAVEC gave excessive and unreasonable weight to that factor, contrary to and misapplying RAVEC’s policy or practice.

Ground 4 concerns an alleged lack of adequate transparency. The claimant says that RAVEC’s policy, although of such a kind as to make it inappropriate to be published, should nevertheless have been available to the claimant at the start of RAVEC’s decision-making process in respect of him. The claimant was, he says, not informed about the composition of RAVEC, the details of RAVEC’s policy or how it operated or applied.

Ground 5 alleges procedural unfairness in that the claimant was denied the opportunity to make informed representations before RAVEC reached its decision on 28 February 2020. The claimant relies on R v SSHD ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at page 560. The content of the duty will depend on the facts of the particular case: JA (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2014] 1 WLR 4291 at paragraph 17. The duty arises when a person’s legally protected interest may be affected by the decision of a public authority: R (Talpada) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 841 at paragraph 57. In the present case, the claimant submits that he stood to be deprived of an existing benefit; namely, the security he had been receiving hitherto.

Ground 6 essentially arises from the disclosure to the claimant, in the course of these proceedings, of the 2017 and 2021 terms of reference of RAVEC and the 2021 evaluation criteria. Permission to bring judicial review has not been granted in respect of ground 6 and that ground is being dealt with on a “rolled up” basis. Ground 6 is divided into 3 elements. Ground 6A and 6B are closely intertwined. They allege, respectively, misapplication of policy/failure to follow policy; and irrationality/unreasonableness in failing to treat the claimant as within the RAVEC cohort and by not applying the process in the relevant terms of reference. The policy in question is said to be the terms of reference and evaluation criteria. The alleged failings are in essence twofold. First, the decision of 28 February 2020 is vitiated because a risk analysis in respect of the claimant should have been conducted by the RMB, prior to the decision being taken. This, the claimant says, represented a departure from policy. In accordance with the Nadarajah principle (R (Nadarajah) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1363), a policy must be followed unless there is a good reason not to do so. No such reason exists, according to the claimant, in the present case.

The second aspect arises from Mr Hipgrave’s three-fold categorisation in his first witness statement of those who comprise the RAVEC cohort. Given what has been disclosed in these proceedings in respect of the Other VIP Category, the claimant submits that Sir Richard Mottram’s decision of 28 February 2020 was not made with regard to certain individuals who are within that category, and whose position was in material respects analogous to that of the claimant. [redacted text]. There was thus no rational basis for refusing to consider whether the claimant fell within the Other VIP Category, failing to treat him as falling within that category and, at least, failing to commission an RMB analysis before making the decision. Similar points are made in respect of the claimant [redacted text].

The claimant also says that by failing to treat him as falling within the RAVEC cohort and therefore not following the process in the relevant terms of reference, RAVEC acted irrationally or unreasonably in the public law sense. In particular, it was irrational, on the one hand, to say that the claimant was no longer within the RAVEC cohort and, on the other, to state (as Sir Richard Mottram does in his first witness statement) that the claimant nevertheless remained within the “purview” of RAVEC, in the sense that there would be occasions when it would be appropriate to provide the claimant with protective security. The point is said to be reinforced by the letter of 24 June 2021 from the new Chair of RAVEC, which describes the claimant as in effect an “exceptional member” of the RAVEC cohort. The decision in May 2023 in respect of the claimant was irrational on the further basis that it [redacted text].

A contrast is also drawn by the claimant with [redacted text]. [redacted text], in contrast to that taken in respect of the claimant.

The final pleaded challenge is Ground 6C. This alleges procedural unfairness, in that the claimant was not fully and properly informed about the RAVEC “categories” or the terms of reference and so could not make meaningful submissions about them. The same is true, says the claimant, of the Other VIP Category and the [redacted text].

The claim in this case was issued on 20 September 2021. The substance of the challenge is to the decision of 28 February 2020. This established the principle for the arrangements in respect of the claimant’s security when he was to visit the United Kingdom. CPR 54.5(1) requires a judicial review claim to be made promptly and in any event within three months. The issue of delay was specifically preserved by Swift J, when he granted permission in respect of certain of the (then pleaded) grounds. For the reasons I set out later in this judgment, I find that time began to run for the purposes of the CPR on 28 February 2020 and not, as the claimant contends, when the claimant was first informed about security arrangements for his visit to the United Kingdom, and which he considered to be unsatisfactory. This is said to be either 22 June or 29 June 2021.

The defendant, however, does not take a timeliness issue in respect of Ground 6A or (at least most of) 6C. Grounds 4 and 5 are, however, closely bound up with Ground 6C; indeed, the defendant’s skeleton argument addresses all three of those grounds under a single heading. In these circumstances, I conclude there is little point in refusing to extend time in respect of Grounds 4 and 5, even though in practice they are largely overtaken by Ground 6C. I therefore extend time for the purposes of grounds 4 and 5.

Although I understand the defendant to take a timeliness point in respect of elements of Ground 6B, it is noteworthy that he acknowledges this ground’s relationship with Ground 6A. At paragraph 33 of the defendant’s skeleton argument, he contends that Ground 6B does no more than “repackage” the complaints set out in Ground 6A under what the defendant describes as the more accurate heading of “unreasonableness”. I also note that, in responding to Ground 6B, the defendant engages with the complaint made about RAVEC’s decision of May 2023, albeit without accepting the claimant’s contention that that decision may be discretely challengeable by reference to the so-called concept of “rolling” judicial review. In light of all this, I consider that it is in the interests of the overriding objective to extend time so as to enable Ground 6B to be substantively advanced by the claimant.

Somewhat different timeliness considerations apply in the case of Grounds 2 and 3, which are addressed later in the judgment.