SLAPPED DOWN
Prince Harry humiliated as he LOSES security row after pleading ‘my life is at stake’ – and now faces £1.5m legal bill
Duke claims he was 'forced' to step back from Royal Family
PRINCE Harry has lost his publicly-funded security appeal in a humiliating blow after moaning "my life is at stake" - and now faces a £1.5million legal bill.
The Duke of Sussex brought the case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
6
6
6
Harry always said the three-and-a-half year legal battle "mattered" more to him than anything else - including his privacy rows with the press.
He had moaned he was "singled out" after his round-the-clock royal protection was axed in the wake of Megxit.
Harry also bizarrely claimed stripping him of his security was a plot to force him and Meghan Markle back to Britain.
Earlier this month, Harry returned to the UK for his two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London.
Read more news
But Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis today ruled against him in a humiliating blow for the prince.
The loss - his second unsuccessful appeal against the decision - could be the final nail in the coffin for his security row, although Harry could still take his fight to the Supreme Court.
It also means he faces paying the legal costs for both sides, which is estimated to amount to more than £1.5million
Harry felt he could not afford to lose this case, I saw his frustration in court
By Julia Atherley, Home Affairs Correspondent
For Prince Harry, this was the court case that he felt he could not afford to lose.
After last month’s hearing he said it was the one which “always mattered the most” amid his myriad of legal challenges.
That was evident from his appearance at the Court of Appeal during which he followed the proceedings intently with the help of his lawyer, Jenny Afia.
I was sitting a few rows behind him and at one point he threw his pen down in frustration during the Home Office’s arguments.
He was visibly animated during the two-day hearing and later said that what was heard in the private session confirmed his “worst fears”.
Today’s judgement means that the rift between him and his family is growing ever wider as Harry argues that his family is no longer safe when visiting the UK.
What happens next depends on whether Harry decides to try to take this to another appeal at the Supreme Court.
If he does, he would have to prove that the law in the case raises a point of general public importance.
As it stands, Harry’s security is determined on a case-by-case basis every time he comes to Britain - which the judge has ruled is entirely "sensible" given his circumstances.
For the Duke of Sussex, he has said the case has been overwhelming, and the evidence he has heard has been "difficult to swallow".
The financial cost is also due to be crippling - with Harry now facing paying costs for both sides, estimated to be up to £1.5 million.
In his judgement Sir Geoffrey said Harry’s arguments had been “moving” but did not amount to an actual legal challenge.
Most read in Royals
He added: "The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.
"Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate."
Meghan & Harry are in no man’s land - it’s total crisis point for them
Sir Geoffrey continued: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible."
The judge continued: "From the Duke of Sussex's point of view, I said that something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK.
"That did not in itself give rise to a legal complaint."
Following the two-day appeal hearing earlier this month, Harry later moaned his "worst fears have been confirmed" by secret evidence he heard in court.
He whinged that the decision to withdraw his security had been "difficult to swallow" and that he felt it was just a ploy to lure him and Meghan back into the Royal Family.
Harry, who believes the UK is not safe for his three children to visit, claimed: “People would be shocked by what’s being held back."
The duke also hinted he would never be able to forgive what he viewed as a deliberate move to scrap the protection for his family "as some form of punishment”.
It came after his lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC said he had been "singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment".
The lawyer added: "There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake.
“There is a person sitting behind me who’s being told that he is getting a special and bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
She added: “We say that his presence here and through this appeal is a potent illustration, were one needed, about how much this appeal means to him and family.”
Ms Fatima also touched on Megxit - claiming in written documents that Harry and Meghan Markle felt "forced" to leave to the Royal Family as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.
What can Prince Harry do next?
By Julia Atherley, Home Affairs Correspondent
Prince Harry could now ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, but there is no indication yet that he will make that challenge.
If he wants to do so, he would have to prove that the law in the case raises a point of general public importance.
Legal convention means he would have to ask at the Court of Appeal first, before then asking the Supreme Court.
But the decision today could mark a final nail in the coffin for Harry who said this fight against the British Home Office was one which “always mattered the most.”
In court documents, his team highlighted "recent security incidents" surrounding the Duke.
This included Al-Qaeda calling for Harry "to be murdered" after Ravec's decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.
Another refers to a May 2023 incident after "[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City".
But the government argued Harry's "bare disagreement" with the decision to remove his security "does not amount to a ground of appeal".
They claimed that while Harry "disagrees vehemently" with his security arrangements, his views are "largely irrelevant".
The Home Office also claim they did not act "irrationally" and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry's claim.
Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal "involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees".
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
The royal moaned he was unable to return with Meghan and his children Archie and Lilibet, "because it is too dangerous".
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends in a bespoke arrangement.
Harry also wanted to but officials refused - with insiders insisting cops are not "guns for hire".
Today's ruling comes after High Court judge Sir Peter Lane previously rejected the duke's case and ruled Ravec's approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
In his ruling in February, the judge said there had not been any "unlawfulness" in the call to pull Harry's security.
Read More on The Sun
He also explained Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.
The judge added: "The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”
How the security row has dragged on
- 2020
February
Ravec ruled that the duke will not receive the same level of taxpayer-funded personal protective security when visiting from the US, after he and the Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals.
They were later forced to disclose they had put in place "privately funded security arrangements" for their move to the US, after President Donald Trump said his country would not pay for their protection.
- 2021
June 30
Harry met seriously ill children and young people at a WellChild garden party and afternoon tea in Kew Gardens, west London, after returning to the UK from the US.
It is understood that photographers chased the duke's car as he left.
September 20
The duke began legal action against the Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec's decisions.
- 2022
February 18
At a preliminary hearing, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the duke, told the High Court that Harry wanted to bring his children to visit from the US, but that he "does not feel safe" when visiting under the new security arrangements, citing the visit in June 2021.
The court also heard that Harry previously said he wanted to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill.
He argued that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information, which is needed to keep his family safe.
But Robert Palmer KC, for the Home Office, said the offer of private funding was "irrelevant".
In written submissions, he said: "Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it."
Mr Palmer later said in the written submissions that the duke had "failed to afford the necessary measure of respect" to the Home Secretary and Ravec.
March 24
Mr Justice Swift ruled that some documents in the case, including Harry's witness statement, can be kept confidential.
July 7
At the first stage of the duke's legal challenge, the High Court was told that Ravec's decision in February 2020 was invalid due to "procedural unfairness" because Harry was not given an opportunity to make "informed representations beforehand".
Ms Fatima said Harry was not given a "clear and full explanation" of the composition of Ravec and those involved in its decision-making, for example, that it included the royal household.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written arguments that any tensions between Harry and royal household officials were "irrelevant" to his change in status.
Lawyers for the department also said that Ravec's decisions were taken on a "case-by-case" basis.
July 23
Mr Justice Swift allowed Harry's legal challenge to continue "in part", including the argument that Ravec's decisions were legally unreasonable.
- 2023
May 16
Harry attempted to bring a second legal challenge concerning his security arrangements, asking for a judicial review over the decision not to allow him to pay privately for his protection.
Ms Fatima told the High Court that Ravec had "exceeded its authority" as "it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place".
The Home Office, which opposed Harry's second claim, said Ravec considered it was "not appropriate" for wealthy people to "buy" protective security.
May 23
Mr Justice Chamberlain threw out Harry's second claim, stating he could "detect nothing that is arguably irrational" in Ravec's reasoning.
December 5
The full hearing of Harry's claim began in London, with the court told that he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" by Ravec's decision, which was "unlawful and unfair".
The hearing lasted three days, with the duke telling the court in a statement: "It was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020.
"The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US. That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil.
"I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm's way too."
Sir James told the court that Ravec decided that Harry would not be provided protective security "on the same basis as before" due to him no longer being a working member of the royal family and living abroad most of the time.
- 2024
February 28
Retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane dismissed Harry's claim, concluding Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.
April 15
Sir Peter refused to give Harry the go-ahead to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.
June 6
The Court of Appeal gave Harry the green light to challenge the ruling.
- 2025
April 2
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis ordered that some parts of the appeal, concerning "confidential facts", be held in private.
April 8-9
Harry attended both days of the appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
His barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the Court of Appeal that he was "singled out" for "inferior treatment" and that his safety, security and life are "at stake".
She said: "The appellant does not accept that 'bespoke' means 'better'. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment."
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said Ravec's decision was taken in a "unique set of circumstances" and that there was "no proper basis" for challenging it.
He continued that Ravec treats the duke in a "bespoke manner", which was "better suited" to his circumstances.
Sir James said: "He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.
"Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context."
May 2
The Court of Appeal dismissed Harry's challenge, with Sir Geoffrey describing Ravec's decision as "understandable and perhaps predictable".
Reading a summary of the decision, he said: "The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.
"Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate."
In the judgment, he said: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate. Indeed, it seems sensible."
6
6
6
Topics
