Prince Harry loses High Court challenge over taxpayer funded police protection when he visits the UK

28 February 2024, 11:10 | Updated: 28 February 2024, 13:16

The Duke of Sussex took legal action against the Home Office over a decision in 2020 to change the level of his personal security
The Duke of Sussex took legal action against the Home Office over a decision in 2020 to change the level of his personal security. Picture: Alamy

By Asher McShane

The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal challenge against the Home Office over his right to automatic police protection in the UK.

Listen to this article

Loading audio...

Harry’s legal team argued he had been singled out and treated “less favourably” than other royals when he was denied the right to automatic police protection in the UK.

Immediately after the ruling lawyers for Harry said he plans to appeal.

But the Government argued Harry’s claim should be dismissed, arguing the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the Home Office, was entitled to conclude the Duke’s protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.

Harry sued the Home Office after it refused to spend taxpayers’ money on him after he left the royal family.

A decision was reached this morning that there had been no ‘unlawfulness’ in the decisions made by the Home Office to pull Harry’s security.

Read more: ‘A great man’: Royals mourn death of Lady Gabriella Windsor's husband Thomas Kingston after his sudden death at 45

Read more: Nick Ferrari cuts off minister who refuses to answer his questions nine times over Lee Anderson's 'Islamophobic remarks'

Prince Harry pictured leaving the High Court after a hearing about his phone hacking case (file image)
Prince Harry pictured leaving the High Court after a hearing about his phone hacking case (file image). Picture: Alamy

A statement read: "The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020.

"Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational.

"The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness. Even if such
procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant 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."

"The court has also found that there has been no unlawfulness on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain, following the decision of 28 February 2020."

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”.

“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”.

The Sussexes were stripped of their protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.

In December, Home Office lawyers told the High Court Prince Harry would still have publicly-funded police security, but these would be "bespoke arrangements, specifically tailored to him", rather than the automatic security provided for full-time working royals.

A legal spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex said: “The Duke of Sussex will appeal today’s judgment which refuses his judicial review claim against the decision-making body Ravec, which includes the Home Office, the Royal Household and the Met Police.

“Although these are not labels used by Ravec, three categories – as revealed during the litigation – comprise the ‘Ravec cohort’: the Role Based Category, the Occasional Category and the Other VIP Category.

“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.”

More Latest News

See more More Latest News

New Scotland Yard Sign London

Met Police to cut more than 1,200 officers amid growing funding crisis

Zhenhao Zou  raped at least ten women

Twenty-three more women contact police over fears they were attacked by serial rapist Zhenhao Zou

Putin continues to reject Trump's peace plan

'We won't accept Ukraine ceasefire while Zelenskyy remains in power,' Russia warns

The drugs were hidden in his wheelchair

Cocaine haul worth £1 million found hidden inside electric wheelchair during Manchester Airport security check

Betty Webb

'Exceptional' Bletchley Park codebreaker Betty Webb dies at 101

The girl entered the river close to Barge House Causeway, near London City Airport. (stock image)

Missing girl, 11, who 'fell in River Thames while paddling' named - as search continues

Jason, 36, was due to fly home from his holiday in Alicante on Saturday

Brit who vanished on stag do after leaving Spanish airport found as family join search

Virginia Giuffre

Family of Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Giuffre hit out at Australian cops over doubts she has 'days to live'

Exclusive
Donald Trump is using tariffs to fight the culture war, Roy Stewart says

Trump is 'using Tariffs to fight a culture war against Europe,' says Rory Stewart as UK faces prospect of 25% levies

Two men have been found guilty of murder after beating a DPD driver Aurman Singh armed with weapons including an axe, golf club and piece of wood.

Shocking moment DPD driver in Shrewsbury is brutally beaten to death caught on camera

Rebel energy goes bust.

Energy firm Rebel Energy goes bust, leaving 80,000 customers without a supplier

Dramatic moment police swoop on prolific shoplifters mid-way through London Co-Op raid

Moment police swoop on prolific shoplifters mid-way through frantic raid on Co-op store

Luigi Mangione is facing the death penalty for the shooting of United healthcare CEO Brian Thompson

US prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Luigi Mangione in healthcare boss murder case

Birmingham bin strikes have been on going since January 2025

Birmingham bin strike: Why are they striking and why have they declared a major incident?

Emergency services at the scene after an explosion at a building thought to be a gas leak, in Via Pio Foà and Via Vitellia, in Rome, Sunday, March 23, 2025.

Scottish tourist dies after sustaining severe burns in Rome gas explosion that destroyed three-storey hotel

Sainsbury's supermarket recalls chocolate bar.

Major supermarket urgently recalls chocolate bar over fears it contains 'fragments of metal'