Prince Harry has suffered a significant legal defeat in his battle to reinstate his publicly-funded police protection in the UK, losing his appeal against the Home Office and facing a legal bill of more than £1.5 million.
A Battle That “Mattered More Than Anything”
The Duke of Sussex had challenged the decision made by Ravec (the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures) to scale back his security following his 2020 exit from royal duties. He argued the process was unfair and left him exposed to serious threats, calling the decision “difficult to swallow” and claiming it put his family’s safety at risk.
Harry maintained that this legal fight meant more to him than his long-standing privacy disputes with the press, insisting that being stripped of protection felt like a deliberate move to “force” him and Meghan Markle back into royal life.
Court Rejects Appeal
Despite Harry’s claims, the Court of Appeal ruled against him. Lord Justices Vos, Bean, and Edis concluded that his arguments were not legally valid. Sir Geoffrey Vos said the duke’s concerns were “moving” but ultimately did not constitute a legal challenge.
Vos explained that Harry “stepped in and out of” the protected cohort depending on whether he was in the UK or abroad and that the bespoke approach to his protection “seemed sensible.” While acknowledging Harry’s reduced protection may be an “unintended consequence” of stepping back from royal duties, Vos added, “That did not in itself give rise to a legal complaint.”
Legal and Financial Fallout
This is Harry’s second failed appeal over the issue, and unless he takes the case to the Supreme Court, it likely ends the legal saga. He now faces covering both his and the government’s legal expenses, estimated to exceed £1.5 million.
During the hearing, Harry’s lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC argued that he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment” and that his life was “at stake.” She also reiterated that the couple felt “forced” to leave royal life due to inadequate protection.
His legal team pointed to specific threats, including a call by Al-Qaeda for his assassination following Ravec’s decision, and a 2023 incident in which Harry and Meghan were involved in a high-speed paparazzi chase in New York.
Government Defends Its Stance
The Home Office, however, argued Harry’s disagreement did not amount to a legal basis for appeal. Barrister Sir James Eadie KC dismissed Harry’s position as a “continued failure to see the wood for the trees,” stating that the duke’s views on his security were “largely irrelevant.”
Officials emphasized that Harry was still granted protection under certain conditions—such as during royal events or while staying in royal residences—but not during private visits or social outings. His proposal to personally fund armed Met Police guards was also rejected, with sources reiterating that police are not “guns for hire.”
Previous High Court Ruling Upheld
Today’s judgment follows an earlier High Court decision by Sir Peter Lane, who ruled in February that the decision to remove Harry’s security was legally justified. He found no procedural unfairness or irrationality in Ravec’s actions and described Harry’s legal approach as relying on “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the process.
Lane concluded that the tailored security arrangement created for Harry was “legally sound.”
This ruling marks a major setback for Prince Harry and may close the door on his hopes of reinstating full-time, taxpayer-funded security while in the UK. Whether he chooses to escalate the case to the Supreme Court remains to be seen.