A High Court judge has ruled that a decision to recommend removing a CBE is capable of judicial review, rejecting the Prime Minister’s argument that the honours forfeiture process is wholly non-justiciable.
What did the High Court decide?
In R (on the application of Baron Ranger (Raminder Singh Ranger)) v The Prime Minister [2026] EWHC 2466 (Admin), Mrs Justice Lieven considered whether the Prime Minister’s recommendation that Baron Ranger’s CBE be revoked was open to judicial review.
The judgment was handed down on 6 October 2026 in the King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court. The hearing had taken place on 11 June 2026.
The claimant did not challenge the King’s decision itself. Instead, he challenged the Prime Minister’s recommendation which led to the loss of the honour. The preliminary issue before the court was whether such a recommendation could, in principle, be reviewed by the courts.
The court found for the claimant on the common law issue. Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that the decision to revoke an honour was justiciable and that there was no blanket rule placing the decision beyond the reach of judicial review.
What was the background to the case?
Baron Ranger had been awarded a Commander of the British Empire, or CBE, by Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The honour was later removed by His Majesty The King on the advice of the Prime Minister.
On 18 January 2024, the Honours Forfeiture Committee informed Baron Ranger that it was considering whether his CBE should be revoked. The Committee identified nine allegations against him and stated that it was minded to recommend withdrawal of the honour on the basis that the honours system had been brought into disrepute.
Baron Ranger was invited to make representations. He submitted written representations to the Committee on 19 January 2024.
On 19 September 2024, the Chair of the Honours Forfeiture Committee recommended revocation of the CBE to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister accepted that recommendation on 7 October 2024, and His Majesty formally annulled the CBE on 15 October 2024.
- The Honours Forfeiture Committee informs Baron Ranger that it is considering revocation of his CBE.
- Baron Ranger submits written representations to the Committee.
- The Committee Chair recommends revocation to the Prime Minister.
- The Prime Minister accepts the recommendation.
- His Majesty formally annuls the CBE.
- The preliminary issue is heard by Mrs Justice Lieven.
- Judgment is handed down holding the recommendation justiciable.
How did the forfeiture process develop?
The judgment placed significant weight on the development of the honours forfeiture system. The court noted that the process has moved from an ad hoc arrangement towards a structured system with published criteria, independent involvement and procedural safeguards.
Following the 1964 Cunningham Review, forfeiture decisions concerning Orders of the British Empire were considered by a Forfeiture Committee, with recommendations ultimately passed to the Prime Minister and then the Monarch.
Further reviews followed in 2004 and 2012. The 2012 review affirmed the overriding criterion of bringing the honours system into disrepute and introduced a majority of independent members on the Forfeiture Committee, including independent chairs.
A further Cabinet Office review in 2018 introduced additional measures, including permanent independent members, opportunities for written representations in cases not involving a hard trigger, clearer public information about the criteria, defined procedures for government departments and improved guidance for Committee members.
The current process is set out in public information and the Honours Forfeiture Handbook. Potential cases can arise through media reports or notifications from members of the public. They are initially assessed by the Honours Secretariat and may then be considered by the relevant government department before being reviewed by the Secretariat and the Forfeiture Committee.
The Committee considers criteria including whether the honours system has been brought into disrepute, alongside factors such as the evidence, criminal or regulatory findings, the nature of the misconduct and mitigating circumstances.
Where forfeiture is recommended, the Chair writes to the Prime Minister explaining the reasons. The Prime Minister then makes a recommendation to the Monarch.
Why was the revocation justiciable?
The Prime Minister argued that honours decisions fell within a category of prerogative powers that courts should not review. The argument relied in particular on observations made by Lord Roskill in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374, commonly known as the GCHQ case.
In GCHQ, Lord Roskill had identified the grant of honours among prerogative powers which he considered not susceptible to judicial review because of their nature and subject matter.
Mrs Justice Lieven considered that the law had developed considerably since GCHQ. The observations concerning honours were obiter, and later authorities demonstrated that the courts had moved away from treating the source of a power as determinative of whether its exercise could be reviewed.
The judge considered the modern forfeiture process particularly important. It operates under a clearly established procedure and applies criteria capable of largely objective analysis. It was therefore not a purely discretionary decision that was inherently unsuitable for judicial determination.
The court also rejected the argument that the decision was inherently political. The judgment noted that considerable efforts had been made to make the forfeiture process independent of political considerations.
The CBE in issue was also not one of the small category of honours regarded as being solely within the personal gift of the Sovereign. In the ordinary forfeiture process, the Sovereign’s role is exercised following the recommendation process involving the Forfeiture Committee and Prime Minister.
Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that the decision did not concern one of the particularly sensitive areas, such as foreign policy, that would place it beyond the constitutional competence of the courts.
What role did legitimate expectation play?
The existence of detailed public guidance was particularly important to the court’s reasoning.
Mrs Justice Lieven considered that the published procedure, together with the assurance that it would be followed, could give rise to a procedural legitimate expectation that the process would be followed.
The judge referred to the distinction between an individual seeking an honour and an individual who already possesses an honour and faces its removal.
There is no equivalent reputational damage when an application for an honour is simply unsuccessful. By contrast, revocation of an existing honour carries significant consequences because it involves a finding that the individual has brought the honours system into disrepute.
The judgment therefore considered the consequences for the individual alongside the structured nature of the decision-making process.
The removal of an honour has very significant consequences to individuals in terms of public reputational damage.
The court accepted that the Prime Minister may ultimately have a broad margin of appreciation when making the substantive assessment. However, that was a matter for the later consideration of any particular grounds of challenge and did not prevent the decision from being justiciable in principle.
What did the court say about human rights?
Baron Ranger also relied on the Human Rights Act 1998. He argued that removal of the honour potentially interfered with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Prime Minister argued that the Human Rights Act did not remove common law constitutional principles concerning non-justiciability and separation of powers.
The court accepted that the Human Rights Act operates against the background of those constitutional principles. However, because the court had already concluded that the common law challenge was justiciable, there was no corresponding barrier to the Human Rights Act claim being justiciable.
Mrs Justice Lieven therefore held that the Convention claim was justiciable because the common law claim was justiciable.
The judge made clear, however, that this was a finding about justiciability rather than a determination that the claimant’s substantive Convention claim was arguable or would ultimately succeed.
What does the ruling mean?
The decision is significant for the law governing prerogative powers and the honours system. It confirms that the fact a decision derives from the Royal Prerogative does not, by itself, create an absolute bar to judicial review.
For public lawyers, the judgment highlights the importance of the framework surrounding the exercise of a prerogative power. Where a public authority has adopted detailed criteria, procedural guidance and safeguards, those features may provide a legal basis for reviewing whether the stated process has been followed.
The ruling also demonstrates the continuing development of the law on justiciability. Rather than treating an entire category of executive action as immune from scrutiny, the court considered whether the particular decision was one that courts were constitutionally competent to determine.
The decision does not mean that every challenge to the forfeiture of an honour will succeed. Justiciability and the merits of a judicial review claim are separate questions. The court may ultimately afford the decision-maker substantial latitude depending on the nature of the challenge and the subject matter involved.
For the honours system, however, the judgment establishes an important principle: a recommendation to revoke an honour cannot simply be treated as immune from judicial scrutiny because it forms part of the Royal Prerogative.
Frequently asked questions
Can the revocation of an honour be judicially reviewed?
Yes. Mrs Justice Lieven held that a decision to recommend revocation of an honour is capable of judicial review and is not automatically non-justiciable.
Did the court decide whether Baron Ranger should have his CBE restored?
No. The judgment concerned the preliminary issue of justiciability. It did not determine the factual merits of the forfeiture decision or whether the substantive grounds of challenge would succeed.
Why was the published forfeiture procedure important?
The court considered that the published procedure and the assurance that it would be followed could create a procedural legitimate expectation. The structured process also meant that the decision was not inherently unsuitable for judicial review.
Was the decision considered political?
No. The court rejected the argument that revocation of an honour was inherently a political decision. The modern forfeiture system had been developed to operate with independent elements and according to prescribed criteria and procedures.
Does the judgment mean every honours decision will be reviewed by the courts?
No. The judgment establishes that revocation is capable of judicial review. It does not mean that every challenge will succeed or that the courts will substitute their own assessment for that of the decision-maker.
What date was the judgment handed down?
The approved judgment was handed down remotely at 11.30am on 6 October 2026 by Mrs Justice Lieven.