The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal challenge against the government's decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded security when in the UK. Three senior judges at the Court of Appeal rejected his claim that he was 'singled out' for 'inferior treatment' and that his safety was 'at stake'.
The ruling upholds a previous High Court decision that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) acted lawfully in 2020 when it decided Harry should receive a different, 'bespoke' level of protection after he stepped down as a working royal. The new arrangements require 30 days' notice of visits to the UK, with each visit assessed individually.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, stated: 'I concluded, having studied the detailed documents, I could not say the duke's sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for a challenge to Ravec's decision.' He described Ravec's reasoning as 'sensible' and not 'illogical or inappropriate'.
Harry, who attended the two-day hearing last month, described the case as 'the one that always mattered the most'. His barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, argued that his safety, security and life were 'at stake', and that his presence at the hearing illustrated how much the appeal meant to him and his family.
The Home Office, which opposed the appeal, said Ravec faced a 'unique set of circumstances'. A Buckingham Palace spokesperson noted that the issues had been 'examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion'.
Harry could potentially appeal to the Supreme Court, but would need permission. Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg suggested the case was of 'very, very specific importance to Prince Harry' rather than general public interest.
