The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 -

[shady lady]

My view of all this is that it's a timely reminder for PH to be very careful about the company he keeps in his new life, moving in celebrity circles. Since he quit the BRF he is no longer protected by BP like he was before. He may well have taken to California like a duck to water, but he is vulnerable, especially if he is continuing to make certain lifestyle choices.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Unfortunately, even if you're extremely careful, you can't know the real character of someone, especially if you only interact with them briefly, and hindsight's 20/20. For example, I believe in hindsight HM The King would have never went near Jimmy Savile, and he certainly shouldn't be seen as complicit in all of the latter's atrocities. There's currently no evidence that HRH The Duke of Sussex interacted with Diddy more after that 2000s's picture, and even the deposition doesn't imply that the former was involved in the latter's trafficking, only that Diddy knowing him (along with others) led to a lot of unearned credibility.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

I would have thought being the son of the current King of the UK, and the grandson of the longest reigning Queen of the UK would count for more than being the son of the former wife of the then heir to the throne.

Not here in America lol.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

My view of all this is that it's a timely reminder for PH to be very careful about the company he keeps in his new life, moving in celebrity circles. Since he quit the BRF he is no longer protected by BP like he was before. He may well have taken to California like a duck to water, but he is vulnerable, especially if he is continuing to make certain lifestyle choices.

Yes but just worth noting the only known and legitimate interaction Harry had with Combs was at a Diana awards event that he performed at that Prince William was at, so pretty sure it was okayed by the palace and a plenty of people felt it okay at the time.

 

[Durham]

I would have thought being the son of the current King of the UK, and the grandson of the longest reigning Queen of the UK would count for more than being the son of the former wife of the then heir to the throne.

And the former wife of the last heir apparent only became well known because of who she married not for any other reason

But it is true that Diana was popular in the US & yes there do seem to be some Americans (weird as it may seem to us in Britain) who seem to think he's something special because of his birth. But the US is a big place & most of its inhabitants no doubt couldn't care less. And amen to that.

 

[Marengo]

And on that note let's move on from the discussion about who is the most well-known member or deceased member of the British royal family in the Unites States of America, which is not the topic of this thread.

 

[muriel]

Not here in America lol.

To each their own.

 

[TLLK]

Prince Harry's failed bid to get police protection back cost taxpayer…

archived 27 Mar 2024 16:32:07 UTC

archive.ph

Prince Harry’s failed legal bid to overturn a Home Office decision to deny him the right to automatic police protection cost the taxpayer more than £500,000, the Telegraph can reveal.
The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the Royal family taking legal action against the Government.
Figures released via a Freedom of Information request reveal that the total cost of fighting two separate judicial review claims lodged by the Duke of Sussex over his security reached £514,128.
That included more than £180,000 for counsel, £320,000 for the Government Legal Department, £2,300 in court fees and almost £10,000 in e-disclosure.

 

[shady lady]

Prince Harry's failed bid to get police protection back cost taxpayer…

archived 27 Mar 2024 16:32:07 UTC

archive.ph

Hopefully as he lost the case he'll have to pay those costs.

 

[Somebody]

Wouldn't that be included in/at the end of the original ruling (whether he has to pay the government's expenses or that each party has to pay their own expenses)?

 

[muriel]

Hopefully as he lost the case he'll have to pay those costs.

I so do hope Harry has to cover the government's legal bills. That should serve as a clear disincentive to anybody considering frivolous legal action.

 

[Mirabel]

I always think that the loser in any lawsuit should have to pay all costs, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the US.
It's unfortunate, because many think it costs more to fight a case than to make a settlement. There are people who actually make a living that way.

 

[Somebody]

Wouldn't that be included in/at the end of the original ruling (whether he has to pay the government's expenses or that each party has to pay their own expenses)?

Looked up the Approved Judgment and it seems it does not order the loosing party to pay the other party's costs (unlike for example Dutch court rulings which end with such a statement; if a claim is partially approved, they would normally order that each party pays their own expenses).

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AC2021LON002527-RDoS-v-SSHD-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

 

[Somebody]

I hadn't read the jugdment in full before. The following parts are interesting:

In the Sandringham Agreement (January 13) it was agreed that the royal family would support the duke and duchess in 'continuing to require effective security' (in the UK, Canada and any other country where they might be) - but is was also noted that it wasn't their decision to make.

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”

RAVEC wasn't happy about the claims made by H&M that their security would not change as that was not a given but would depend on their intended plans (the uncertainty about their plans made it hard to know how the security situation would evolve). H&M were made aware of that quickly:

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. (...) 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”.

The possibility of payment for security was already raised very early on and ruled out immediately:

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.”

RAVEC early on warned that it was likely that they would not continue the same security arrangements for the couple essentially becoming private citizens in Canada. At this point, they were already referring to them as potential 'celebrities' and stating that 'intrusive interest' because of that status was not a good enough reason to receive publicly paid protection:

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.

On Feb 6 Sir Edward Young provided more information on how the lives of the Duke and Duchess would look like in the future. The royal family is doing as promised and stress why they think the duke and duchess require government security; their arguments were:
- Harry has a public profile by virtue of being born in the Royal Family
- Harry's military service
- Meghan's own profile and history of targeting
- Being mindful of tragic incidents in the past (referring to Diana's death)
Nonetheless, they understand, that this was not their decision to make.

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”.

Harry was less overt about referencing his mother and felt that he was punished:

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 …”. (...) 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”.

In February, the royal household (A is an undisclosed member of the royal household who was also on RAVEC) was already exploring not only commercial security options in Canada but also in the US:

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”.

Harry kept referencing his thinking that he was being 'punished':

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”

[To be continued]

All quotes from: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

 

[Somebody]

Highlighting some interesting aspects in the judgment (continued). All of these were after the decision on the security arrangement (which of course isn't fully outlined in the judgment; most of that is redacted).

They considered 'test trips' to review whether the new procedure worked. Harry was still clearly unhappy and felt singled out - in his mind the threat would never decrease.

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”.

RAVEC distinguishes between threat and risk:

(i) capability + intent = threat
(ii) Threat + vulnerability = likelihood
(iii) Likelihood + impact = risk”.

Harry's security during his visit to the UK for the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral was based on an existing protocol: the Inward Visitor Protection Policy

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

For Harry's next planned visit, Harry did not meet the 28-days in advance requirement:

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.

The royal household was not happy with the security arrangements -especially with the distinction made between the official Diana-related event and Harry's private charity event- but seemed to accept them.

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]

They were hoping that from this visit some kind of standard arrangement could be worked out:

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. (...) 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.

Harry was clearly unhappy about the proposed arrangement. He had a legal representative sent a letter:

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]”

Again, his mother's death seems to be a major trigger for Harry and one of the main reasons he thinks he should be receiving security (X is the head/representative of Harry's private security):

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”.

Apparently, Archie and Lilibet were expected to travel with Harry and Meghan in September 2022:

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.

It seems they may have been left at home as some kind of protest against the security arrangements that were in place during the visit. At least in August Harry's legal representative stated their discontent - the decision was not revised but the chair of RAVEC did discuss the arrangement with Harry by phone on September 1:

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 seems that after the queen's death, Harry and Meghan received protection as if they were still senior working members of the royal family instead of private citizens who happened to be members of the royal family as well.

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].

For Harry's court visits in June last year, he again was unhappy with the arrangements - and referred to the famous 'NY city chase':

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].

The government explained that they did not agree with Harry's assessment - as of course RAVEC stood by their decision:

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].

My general understanding is that independent on how the NY city incident played out, this would not have an impact on RAVEC decisions, as these do relate to Harry's activities as a private citizen in combination with his 'celebrity' status.

Again all quotes are taken from: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

 

[Somebody]

Harry made various amendments in his claims. The final grounds he presented were (ground 1 apparently was removed at some stage):

Ground 2: impact was insufficiently considered - referencing his mother's death

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. (...) These considerations were so obviously material that it was irrational not to take them into account

Ground 3: security arrangements were unreasonable; my interpretation is that it talks about his change in status that was the primary ground for his change in security arrangements.

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: Harry was not sufficiently informed about RAVEC procedures and policies

Ground 5: Harry was not able to argue his case (in person) before a decision was made

Ground 6: He doesn't agree with how the policies were applied (once he was made aware of them throughout the court proceedings).

Ground 6 is divided into 3 elements. (...) 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. (...) 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.
Given what has been disclosed in these proceedings in respect of the Other VIP Category, (...) 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. (...) 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].

Again taken from the redacted Approved Judgment:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AC2021LON002527-RDoS-v-SSHD-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

 

[Somebody]

The decision for each claim:

Ground 6A (Failure to follow policy without good reason): the judge concludes that RAVEC did deviate from their own practices but for good reason and that this deviation was beneficial for Harry.

. I am entirely satisfied that legally sufficient reasons existed for RAVEC to depart from its policy on practice, to the extent that this would otherwise have resulted in an RMB assessment being conducted in respect of the claimant in 2020, prior to a decision being taken on whether he should receive vulnerability mitigation and/or protection measures at public expense. Far from assisting the claimant, for the reasons I have given, the evaluation criteria support the fact that, at the time, an RMB assessment of the claimant would have been likely to be of less practical utility than the [redacted text] arrangements described in the letter of 28 February 2020.

Also the 'category' discussion was quashed. These are not official categories but only used as a way to make sure the court understood who were part of the RAVEC cohort.

The judge doubles down on the argument that RAVEC did not take impact sufficiently into consideration; using the word 'bizarre' if they wouldn't do that.

I refer to what I have said earlier in this regard. Furthermore, the credibility of this statement needs to be assessed in a common-sense manner, by reference to the broader RAVEC process. The impact both at home and abroad of a successful attack on a particular individual lies at the heart of the rationale for RAVEC’s existence. It would be bizarre if the highly-experienced Chair of RAVEC, making a decision about the
claimant, would not have had in mind the consequences of a successful attack, both as regards [redacted text]. In so finding, I am (as Ms Fatima KC rightly cautioned) not stepping outside the evidence. This conclusion directly stems from the evidence about the nature and functions of RAVEC and the responsibilities and expertise of its members.

I grant permission to advance Ground 6A. For all of the above reasons, I find that Ground
6A fails.

Ground 6B (irrationality): the judge concludes that Harry not remaining in the RAVEC cohort is a rational decision and the 'bespoke process' created for Harry is legally sound.

In its broader formulation, the complaint in Ground 6B suffers the same crucial weakness as I have identified a number of times in addressing Ground 6A. It proceeds from an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the RAVEC process, subjecting that process to an interpretative analysis which may be appropriate for some kinds of statutory provisions and statutory guidance but which is entirely inapt for the sort of decision-making with which we are here concerned. The fact that the claimant remains with the “purview” of RAVEC in the way Sir Richard Mottram describes does not mean the claimant falls to be treated, for security purposes, as [redacted text] or the sort of exceptional individual whose circumstances are such as to make their ongoing presence in the RAVEC cohort appropriate. The “bespoke” process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.

The judge seemed to be a bit impatient with Harry at this point: Harry is entitled to his views but that does not negate the expert opinion of RAVEC.

It is manifest that we are, here, once again concerned with what is a disagreement on the
part of the claimant with an expert assessment that RAVEC was entitled to reach. The claimant’s evidence indicates that he does not consider [redacted text]. He is, of course, entitled to that view; but RAVEC, in the light of its experience, has rationally concluded otherwise. Indeed, RAVEC [redacted text]

As expected, dangers posed due to recklessness by paparazzi are not part of RAVEC's security considerations - even though it is understandable that this is of great concern to Harry. For security arrangements 'intent' is a relevant part of the considerations:

The complaint about the arrangements for the visit in June 2021 is essentially about the issue of paparazzi. We have seen in the witness statement of X how paparazzi caused him and the claimant alarm on 30 June 2021, following the charity event at Kew Gardens. It is, of course, entirely understandable why the claimant should be particularly concerned about the activities of paparazzi, in the light of what happened to his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.

I have noted earlier how the claimant took grave exception to the categorisation by the defendant of this issue in 2023 as relating to privacy. Plainly, the uncontrolled activities on highways of photographers can pose both a direct and indirect danger to the safety of road users and pedestrians. That danger is not to be underestimated. The essential point that was being made on behalf of the defendant, however, is that potential problems arising from the activities of paparazzi are not a matter for RAVEC. [redacted text]. As
[the Current Chair] explains, “[redacted text]”. The same point emerges from the evidence of Mr Hipgrave. RAVEC is concerned with security against persons bearing a hostile intent towards an individual, not those who, however recklessly, may cause danger in their efforts to get a photograph of a celebrity that they can then try to sell to a media outlet. As [the Current Chair] says, “[redacted text]”.
(...)
The claimant suggests that if a photographer is able to get so close to the vehicle in which the claimant is travelling in order to take a photograph of him, then so too could someone with intent to harm the claimant. Whilst this may be true, it sheds no light on the risk of there being persons with such hostile intent.

I grant permission to advance Ground 6B. For the reasons I have given, Ground 6B fails.

Grounds 4, 5 and 6C (transparency and procedural unfairness): this mainly deals with the question about whether the meetings with H&M's private secretary outline their future plans prior to the decision of 28 Feb being made were sufficient or that, as Harry claims, he himself should have been personally involved in discussions. The judge considers his representation, not only by their private secretary but also by other members of the royal household who were all well aware of how RAVEC works, sufficient.

For the above reasons, Grounds 4, 5 and 6C fail (permission being granted to advance Ground 6C).

Grounds 2 and 3 (failure to take account of material considerations and irrationality): here the defendants submitted that the claims were out of time and the judge agrees. The comparison to other cases that Harry and his representatives make fail. Nonetheless, as they are linked to other grounds he still considers them.

I am in no doubt that these cases do not assist the claimant and that, so far as Grounds 2 and 3 are concerned, the application was made considerably out of time. (...) The contrast with the claimant’s case is stark. The claimant obviously had standing to challenge the decision of 28 February 2020 as soon as it was made. It concerned him specifically. It changed [redacted text] security arrangements that hitherto had been applied to him. From the time the decision came into effect, the claimant knew that whenever he might come to the United Kingdom, he would have to engage with RAVEC in order for it to decide on [redacted text] the security to be provided.
(...)
I must therefore consider whether to extend time. I have decided that it is in the interests of the overriding objective to extend time to enable Grounds 2 and 3 to be substantively addressed. The reason is that, as will by now be apparent, there is a good degree of overlap between, on the one hand, Grounds 2 and 3 and, on the other, Grounds 4 and 5 and 6A and 6C where the issue with timeliness is not materially contested by the
defendant. I have concluded that there is a degree of artificiality in excluding Grounds 2 and 3 from the ambit of substantive consideration. I therefore address them.

A different treatment after Harry and Meghan decided to leave as senior working members of the royal family was rational; it also acknowledges that RAVEC still accepted that their position was not like other private citizens:

It was plainly rational for RAVEC to have had regard to the fact that the claimant was[redacted text]. [redacted text] considered for protection at public expense, having regard amongst other things to the level of risk and the impact an attack on them would have. This is to recognise the [redacted text]. Importantly, the decision of 28 February 2020 accepted that the claimant nevertheless occupied a particular and unusual position, such that it was appropriate to afford him protective security in certain circumstances, [redacted text]. This led to the “bespoke” arrangements, which I have described earlier and which, for the reasons I have given, are free from public law error. The claimant argues that [redacted text] did not impact upon the threat level he faced. I agree, however, with the defendant that RAVEC was well aware of the claimant’s status, background and profile. That included [redacted text]. The decision adopted a flexible approach precisely in order to recognise that [redacted text] might warrant exceptions being made in future in relation to particular contexts.

Also the offer to pay for security is discussed at this point:

The claimant complains that his offer personally to reimburse or proactively finance the cost of protective security was not taken into account by RAVEC. The claimant points out that enquiries in this regard were made by the Royal Household to the Cabinet Office. The answer however, that emerges from the evidence is that, even if Sir Richard Mottram had been personally informed at the time about the offer, it would have been refused on the basis that a person is either entitled to the relevant protection as a member of the RAVEC cohort or they are not. This was confirmed as a principled position for the defendant to take by a decision of 15 February 2022. The claimant’s judicial review challenge in respect of that decision was refused permission.

Grounds 2 and 3 accordingly fail.

The legal teams apparently received a draft judgment and Harry's team tried to convince the judge one more time of his case. However, the response was in line with the draft judgment - and explains once again the weaknesses of Harry's case :

None of these submissions necessitates any substantive elaboration of the findings made above. On the contrary, they are further examples of the overarching problem with the claimant’s case; namely, his “inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the RAVEC process” (paragraph 201 above). The decision of 28 February 2020 was obviously forward-looking in nature, which was the point being made by the defendant in paragraph 162. The “in and out” submission is dealt with at paragraph 178 above. The suggestion
that the claimant should have received both an RMB analysis and a “bespoke” approach ignores the witness evidence of the defendant which, for the reasons I have given, falls to be given weight. As already explained, that evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness, as regards the Other VIP Category.

Final decision:

For these reasons, the application for judicial review is refused.

Source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

THE END

 

[shady lady]

The decision for each claim:

Ground 6A (Failure to follow policy without good reason): the judge concludes that RAVEC did deviate from their own practices but for good reason and that this deviation was beneficial for Harry.


Also the 'category' discussion was quashed. These are not official categories but only used as a way to make sure the court understood who were part of the RAVEC cohort.

The judge doubles down on the argument that RAVEC did not take impact sufficiently into consideration; using the word 'bizarre' if they wouldn't do that.





Ground 6B (irrationality): the judge concludes that Harry not remaining in the RAVEC cohort is a rational decision and the 'bespoke process' created for Harry is legally sound.


The judge seemed to be a bit impatient with Harry at this point: Harry is entitled to his views but that does not negate the expert opinion of RAVEC.


As expected, dangers posed due to recklessness by paparazzi are not part of RAVEC's security considerations - even though it is understandable that this is of great concern to Harry. For security arrangements 'intent' is a relevant part of the considerations:





Grounds 4, 5 and 6C (transparency and procedural unfairness): this mainly deals with the question about whether the meetings with H&M's private secretary outline their future plans prior to the decision of 28 Feb being made were sufficient or that, as Harry claims, he himself should have been personally involved in discussions. The judge considers his representation, not only by their private secretary but also by other members of the royal household who were all well aware of how RAVEC works, sufficient.



Grounds 2 and 3 (failure to take account of material considerations and irrationality): here the defendants submitted that the claims were out of time and the judge agrees. The comparison to other cases that Harry and his representatives make fail. Nonetheless, as they are linked to other grounds he still considers them.


A different treatment after Harry and Meghan decided to leave as senior working members of the royal family was rational; it also acknowledges that RAVEC still accepted that their position was not like other private citizens:


Also the offer to pay for security is discussed at this point:





The legal teams apparently received a draft judgment and Harry's team tried to convince the judge one more time of his case. However, the response was in line with the draft judgment - and explains once again the weaknesses of Harry's case :


Final decision:


Source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

THE END

Thanks for taking the time to post all of this

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Prince Harry's failed bid to get police protection back cost taxpayer…

archived 27 Mar 2024 16:32:07 UTC

archive.ph

Wow! Is there precedent for other members of the BRF who have sued the government? I don’t know how it works in the UK, but in the US you’d most likely have to pay court costs if you lost.

 

[Kenya]

In the Sandringham Agreement (January 13) it was agreed that the royal family would support the duke and duchess in 'continuing to require effective security' (in the UK, Canada and any other country where they might be) - but is was also noted that it wasn't their decision to make.

Which makes their insinuations in the Oprah interview that it was the family's choice to pull their security dishonest and disingenuous. I suppose acknowledging that his family supported his request for continued security but the decision wasn't theirs to make wouldn't have been nearly as attention-grabbing as suggesting that his family pulled their security out of spite.

 

[tommy100]

The former Home Secretary Priti Patel said when the case was first brought that she was determined to recoup any cost to the public of the case Harry brought. There is a new Home Secretary now so who knows, but I can't see, given the reports, that the current Home Secretary would have a hugely different view.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Thank you for the detailed summary of the verdict, Somebody.

I've always that a lot of HRH The Duke of Sussex's fight for security stemmed from paranoia due to both his mother's death partially caused from her dismissal of her own security and the harassment and obsession of both her and his wife, making him perceive that there are more threats to his family than there actually are. Of course, British law enforcement should not indulge HRH The Duke of Sussex's paranoia, especially since they have thorough procedures to protect the Sussex family in ways that are different even for non-Royals under similar circumstances.

Whether his wife and his children ever come back to the United Kingdom or not, I hope that one day HRH The Duke of Sussex can find peace in knowing that nothing will happen to his family.

 

[Hallo girl]

Thank you for the breakdown ,SOMEBODY, as a British taxpayer I really do hope they chase Harry for the costs. It was a waste of public money, having said that ,it is now public that some of what he said was not totally accurate.
The family didn't remove the security, they actually supported him, a letter was sent on behalf of the late Queen.
There is a security plan in place, for when he and his family visits the UK, which is fair enough. I do not think anybody really had a problem with that.
I see that as a very fair solution, Harry and Meghan cannot expect the British government, ie British Taxpayers, to cover the costs of their security while they live in another country at the same time as they are announcing Million dollar contracts with various companies.

 

[Ghost]

Thank you for the breakdown ,SOMEBODY, as a British taxpayer I really do hope they chase Harry for the costs. It was a waste of public money, having said that ,it is now public that some of what he said was not totally accurate.
The family didn't remove the security, they actually supported him, a letter was sent on behalf of the late Queen.
There is a security plan in place, for when he and his family visits the UK, which is fair enough. I do not think anybody really had a problem with that.
I see that as a very fair solution, Harry and Meghan cannot expect the British government, ie British Taxpayers, to cover the costs of their security while they live in another country at the same time as they are announcing Million dollar contracts with various companies.

And so it proves also that what was implied in the Oprah interview - that the family was refusing security for Archie because he was not a prince at the time of his birth - was completely fabricated.

 

[camelot23ca]

Hopefully Harry and Meghan will be smart enough to let the issue go and refrain from mentioning it in public again. From reading the above posts, it seems that all of the officials involved, including those in the royal household, spent a lot of time working on finding the best possible security arrangements for Harry and his family. No one hung them out to dry, quite the opposite.

I still think that if Harry and Meghan hadn’t made a public issue of the security arrangements, they could have potentially wound up with significantly more funded protection than what they have now. The above excerpts indicate that RAVEC was able and willing to be flexible. But by keeping the issue in the public eye, Harry effectively tied everyone’s hands.

 

[Hallo girl]

And so it proves also that what was implied in the Oprah interview - that the family was refusing security for Archie because he was not a prince at the time of his birth - was completely fabricated.

Slowly but surely the interview is totally unravelling. Bit by bit.

 

[Toledo]

Hopefully Harry and Meghan will be smart enough to let the issue go and refrain from mentioning it in public again. From reading the above posts, it seems that all of the officials involved, including those in the royal household, spent a lot of time working on finding the best possible security arrangements for Harry and his family. No one hung them out to dry, quite the opposite.

I still think that if Harry and Meghan hadn’t made a public issue of the security arrangements, they could have potentially wound up with significantly more funded protection than what they have now. The above excerpts indicate that RAVEC was able and willing to be flexible. But by keeping the issue in the public eye, Harry effectively tied everyone’s hands.

What bothers me now, as I read all the recent posts above to catch up with the RF news, is the use of the Sussex children as a passive aggressive tool to keep throwing darts from the very entitled Duchy of Montecito to the UK.

The UK taxpayers don't need to fund your security if, by your own decision, you move away and break ties with the very same institution that provide you the title and social position you are now marketing about in the USA. That simple. For example, when I retired from my job in 2020, I was entitled to a generous pension based on 3 decades and nine months of work and savings. In their case as a parallel if we can call it their 'work history', they became a couple in summer 2016, married in Spring 2018 and by March 2020 they separated themselves from royal duties.

In terms of employment that's asking your boss to give you full retirement benefits after barely working for two years for The Firm.

I agree with your comment, had they stayed at their duties they would have ended up with all the protection needed and possibly with a better and more flexible work schedule and travel. But like in the 1950's Bette Davis movie All About Eve, the role of the understudy was just to meh for their financial ambitions. I understand the need for financial independence, but you can't have it both ways if you are a modern-day royal. You just can't set camp in California and expect funds from the UK to rain down when you visit the family you separated yourself from. No can do.

 

[polyesco]

Meghan visited the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last week

ExtraTV on Instagram: "Meghan Markle put smiles on a lot of faces at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last week with a very special story time! 📚❤️ Her visit was part of the hospital’s month-long Make March Matter fundraising campaign to support CHLA’

463 likes, 72 comments - extratv on April 2, 2024: "Meghan Markle put smiles on a lot of faces at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last week with a very special story time! 📚❤️ Her ..."

www.instagram.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775220216307515455

 

[Snowangel]

Meghan visited the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last week

ExtraTV on Instagram: "Meghan Markle put smiles on a lot of faces at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last week with a very special story time! 📚❤️ Her visit was part of the hospital’s month-long Make March Matter fundraising campaign to support CHLA’

463 likes, 72 comments - extratv on April 2, 2024: "Meghan Markle put smiles on a lot of faces at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last week with a very special story time! 📚❤️ Her ..."

www.instagram.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775220216307515455

Nice to see Meghan out and about

 

[Curryong]

I’m very glad that Meghan took time out to ‘put a lot of smiles’ on the faces of children’ at her latest visit to the LA Children’s Hospital. Any visitor that makes sick young children feel even a bit happier is doing good in my book!
Here in Melbourne we have just had our Easter Good Friday Appeal which brings in many millions of dollars in donations each year. Everything assists, whether it’s monetary or visits to cheer patients up.