The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal battle over his security arrangements while in the UK despite claiming in the court fight that his “life is at stake”.Harry argued he had been “singled out” and given “inferior” treatment in the way the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) decided he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I said in my judgment that Sir Richard had indeed failed to follow Ravek's policy, but I said that there were four main reasons for holding as a matter of law that Sir Richard had had a good reason for having done so.
00:21First, Ravek's policy was inward-facing and unpublished, and it concerned an area of national importance that was peculiarly within the expertise of law enforcement agencies, Ravek and the Royal Household.
00:40Secondly, in this area of high political sensitivity, the court had considerable respect for Sir Richard and Ravek as decision-makers, because they had unrivalled expertise and experience in the field of royal protection.
01:02Thirdly, the decision was explained in contemporaneous documentation to the effect that the Risk Management Board would not undertake further risk analyses for the Duke of Sussex,
01:19because they were no longer required, given the alternative governance arrangements that were to be established on a case-by-case basis for the future.
01:30Sir Richard had, however, obtained three threat assessments for the Duke of Sussex during February 2020 before writing the decision letter.
01:41Fourthly, Sir Richard and Ravek had given compelling reasons for having reached the conclusion that the appropriate course was to establish bespoke arrangements for when the Duke returned to the United Kingdom on future visits.
02:01The Duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravek.
02:11Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate depending on the circumstances.
02:24It was impossible, it was impossible, I said in my judgment, to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate.
02:32Indeed, it seemed sensible.
02:36Finally, even if there had been a risk analysis from the Risk Management Board,
02:41it would, it would, very likely, have only confirmed the threat, vulnerability and impact levels which the Duke had faced when earlier risk analyses were undertaken.
02:56But it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation,
03:03which were the need for protective security on future uncertain visits and the government's appetite for risk.
03:15The decisions taken in the decision letter, and subsequently, were taken, I said in my judgment,
03:22as an understandable and perhaps predictable reaction to the Duke of Sussex having stepped back from royal duties
03:31and having left the UK to live principally overseas.
03:37So the conclusion, in my judgment, with which my colleagues, Lord Justices Bean and Edis agreed,
03:46was that the Duke of Sussex's appeal would be dismissed.
03:52So that concludes this afternoon's hearing. Thank you.