Prince Harry's security case - all you need to know

Prince Harry has lost his Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements.

The Duke of Sussex, who attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice last month, was appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK.

But Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos ruled that while his safety concerns were both “powerful and moving”, Harry’s “sense of grievance” did not “translate into a legal argument”.

The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and was one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.

So what is the case about, what happened in the courts, and what’s happening now?

What was the dispute over?

Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghan in March 2020.

Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.

But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.

He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.

The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.

“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”

What did the Court of Appeal rule?

At the Royal Courts of Justice in central London on Friday, Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos dismissed Harry’s appeal and said the original decision to downgrade his protection was correct.

In his written judgement, the judge 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.”

Sir Geoffrey then said that Ravec’s decision was therefore “understandable and perhaps predictable,” and while he noted Harry’s complaint that he did not have a risk analysis in 2020, “it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation”.

He added: “From the Duke of Sussex’s point of view, 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.

“But that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.”

How did Harry react?

In an interview with the BBC shortly after the ruling, Harry said he cannot “see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point”.

Read more: Harry says King ‘won’t speak to me’

“For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely,” he said. “The things that they’re going to miss is, well, everything you know.”

The duke added that the security row, “that has now been ongoing for five years with regards to my human life and safety”, is “the sticking point” and “the only thing that’s left”.

He added: “Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things but… I would love reconciliation with my family, there’s no point in continuing to fight anymore.

“Life is precious. I don’t know how much longer my father has, he won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. It would be nice to reconcile.”

Later, Harry issued a written statement that said “my ask has been simple: that the standard protocols for security and risk assessments be applied to me in the same way they are to others – including people who have never carried out any public functions on behalf of the State”.

In it, he said the “legal action has been a last resort, but one that has uncovered shocking truths” before accusing Royal Household members on Ravec – and the committee itself – of “reckless action” which he said “knowingly put me and my family in harm’s way”.

The duke added: “I remain committed to a life of public service. This has been and will always be, my life’s work, and when you strip away the noise, you’ll be able to hear, all I’ve been asking for is safety.”

Did the Palace say anything?

Prior to Harry’s second statement, Buckingham Palace issued a brief statement on the ruling.

“All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion,” it said.

It’s also understood that the King felt it would have been constitutionally improper to intervene while the case was being considered by the government and reviewed by the courts.

And at the time of the court’s ruling, the Home Office said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case.

“The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.

“It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”

What did Harry’s lawyers say in court?

At a two-day hearing in April, lawyers for the duke said he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety, security and life are “at stake”.

Shaheed Fatima KC told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back” from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.

After Ravec’s decision, al Qaeda called for Harry “to be murdered”, and his security team was informed that the terrorist group had published a document which said his “assassination would please the Muslim community”, Ms Fatima added.

She also said that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process'”.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that Harry’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.

He said Ravec treats the duke in a “bespoke manner”, which was “better suited” to his circumstances.

Harry “is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec,” Sir James said, adding: “Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.”

What happened in court before then?

The duke filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.

At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.

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.”

He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.

The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”

The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.

He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.

The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.

“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Read more on Prince Harry:
Prince Harry’s charity row explained
Watchdog opens case into charity concerns
Analysis: Row risks Harry’s tribute to Diana

After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.

“The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.

“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

Prince got green light to appeal against High Court ruling

In April 2024, Harry was refused permission to challenge the ruling by the High Court, but was told he could apply to challenge it again directly to the Court of Appeal.

He did so, and in June 2024 the Court of Appeal said it would hear the duke’s challenge following a direct application from his lawyers.

Granting the appeal, Judge David Bean said he was persuaded “not without hesitation” that Harry’s challenge has a real prospect of success.

#Prince #Harrys #security #case #News