A new legal challenge has arisen in the Supreme Court this week, focusing on the rights of a minor child in the British royal family. The case centers on Charles III and the protection of his family’s safety within the United Kingdom, a protection that was revoked in February 2020 after the prince stepped back from his royal duties. The prince’s legal team argues that he has faced unequal treatment and seeks the restoration of protective measures despite his renunciation of a royal title. The action raises questions about the balance between personal safety and public accountability in the modern monarchy.
The core dispute targets the reasoning of the Executive Committee for the Protection of the Royal Family and Public Persons, known by its English acronym Ravec. Three years ago, Ravec reportedly concluded that Enrique and his family no longer matched the profile of active royal duties and spent most of their time abroad. Based on that assessment, the protection plan for their UK visits should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with police protection no longer automatically allocated. The central argument is that the safety framework applied to the prince and his relatives was made without a comprehensive, case-specific risk analysis and without a clear commitment to ongoing protection while they travel in Britain.
“Procedural Injustice”
Enrique’s lawyers emphasize the importance of restoring safety measures for his family. They argue that the stability of the prince’s public reputation and the integrity of the government and British institutions could be at risk if any incident occurred during visits. The legal team contends that Ravec should have considered the potential impact of a serious attack on the plaintiff and the consequent harm to national prestige. They also suggest that there was no convincing justification for withdrawing protection, and that relevant risk assessments may not have been carried out adequately. A key point in their argument is the improper handling of the plaintiff’s request to appear in person before Ravec and the lack of clarity around the members of the committee, including the private secretary of the late Queen, with whom Enrique has had notable tensions. The lawyer maintaining the case said that the plaintiff did not receive proper briefing, and that Fatima, a court representative involved in the matter, viewed this as a clear case of procedural injustice and insisted she was not involved in decisions the committee took.
court battles
The prince has already faced setbacks in British justice. In May, the same court rejected his request to fund his own police protection. The judge sided with Ravec and the Metropolitan Police, stating that paying for the protection personally could place officers at risk and would not be an appropriate solution. The prince’s team had pointed to private organizations and events where policing had been funded through other means for major sports or entertainment events, asserting that a similar approach could work in his case. Yet the court ruled that those instances were not comparable to Enrique’s situation, and the protection issue remained unresolved by those arguments.
Despite these rulings, the prince has alleged ongoing persecution during visits to England. He asserts that actions taken by certain outlets and individuals threaten the safety of himself and his family. The protection request forms part of a broader dispute with the country’s leading tabloids, whom he accuses of using illegal methods to obtain private information about his life and the life of his family, including memories of the mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris in 1997. Enrique currently faces three separate legal actions against major media groups, including those behind the Daily Mirror, The Sun, and DMG Media’s Daily Mail. Several of these cases are expected to reach court in the coming months as the legal process continues to unfold and the parties prepare their arguments for adjudication. Reports indicate that the outcomes of these matters could shape the public conversation around royal privacy, press conduct, and protective measures for members of the royal family in the United Kingdom and beyond.