In a judgment handed down on 6 October 2026 in R (Baron Ranger) v The Prime Minister [2026] EWHC 2466 (Admin), Lieven J held that a Prime Minister’s recommendation to the Sovereign that an honour be revoked is, in principle, open to judicial review.
The Claimant, Lord Ranger, had his CBE annulled by HM The King on 15 October 2024. The Claimant did not challenge the King’s decision, but rather the Prime Minister’s recommendation, based upon the work of the Honours Forfeiture Committee.
Lieven J rejected the submission that honours decisions turn on moral, ethical and political considerations that lie beyond the constitutional competence of the court. She considered that moral and ethical judgements involved are no different from those in many reviewable decisions, and that a decision not to grant an honour, which is made privately, revocation is highly public and causes reputational damage. She found that she was not bound by GCHQ or any later case to hold the decision non-justiciable.
In respect of Lord Ranger’s Human Rights Act claim under Article 10 of the ECHR, the Court concluded that this was justiciable as a result of its analysis of the common law position; the Judge declined to decide whether the Convention claim would be justiciable on its own if she were wrong on the common law.
The judgment is the first decision in England and Wales to hold that the revocation of an honour on Prime Ministerial advice is amenable to judicial review.
Christopher Knight KC and Daniel Isenberg, instructed by the Government Legal Department, acted for the Prime Minister.
The judgment is available here.
