LONDON, UK – Prince Harry has lost his latest legal challenge against the British government’s decision to downgrade his security arrangements when he visits the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal today upheld a previous High Court ruling, dismissing the Duke of Sussex’s claim that the level of protection he receives is inadequate.
The decision, delivered by a panel of three senior judges, marks a significant setback for Prince Harry, who has argued that the removal of his automatic entitlement to publicly funded police protection following his departure from royal duties in 2020 puts him and his family at risk.
The Duke of Sussex had sought to overturn a ruling by the High Court in February 2024, which deemed the government’s decision-making process lawful. His legal team argued during an appeal hearing last month that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), the body responsible for royal security, had treated him unfairly and failed to conduct a proper risk assessment.
However, the Court of Appeal judges today rejected these arguments. In a summary of the ruling, Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos acknowledged the “powerful and moving arguments” presented by Prince Harry’s legal team regarding his safety concerns. Nevertheless, he concluded that the Duke’s “sense of grievance” did not translate into a legal basis for overturning Ravec’s decision.
“The conclusion, in my judgment, with which my colleagues Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edith agreed, was that the Duke of Sussex’s appeal would be dismissed,” Sir Geoffrey stated.
The court found that Ravec’s decision to provide Prince Harry with security on a “case-by-case” basis, depending on the reason for his presence in the UK and the functions he is carrying out, was “understandable and perhaps predictable” given his changed status.
Prince Harry, who now resides in California with his wife Meghan and their two children, was not present for the judgment. His legal team had previously argued that his private security arrangements in the US do not have the same access to UK intelligence and that he faces ongoing threats, including from terrorist groups.
The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposed the appeal, arguing that the security arrangements for the Duke were bespoke and appropriate to his current role.
This latest ruling appears to exhaust Prince Harry’s legal avenues in this particular challenge. While he could potentially seek to appeal to the Supreme Court, this would require demonstrating that the case raises a point of law of public importance. Legal commentators suggest that such an appeal is unlikely to succeed given the specific circumstances of the Duke’s case.
The outcome of this legal battle underscores the complexities surrounding the security arrangements for members of the Royal Family who no longer hold official duties. It remains to be seen how this decision will impact Prince Harry’s future visits to the UK and the level of security he will receive.