Prince Harry has lost a challenge at the Court of Appeal over his security arrangements while in the UK.
Harry was challenging the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country.
In the ruling on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed The Duke of Sussex’s appeal.
Delivering the summary, Sir Geoffrey 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.”
He said the reasoning was “sensible” and that Ravec’s decision was “understandable and perhaps predictable”.
Harry did not attend the brief hearing.
What is Harry’s appeal about?
Harry launched legal action against the Home Office after the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) ruled in February 2020 that he should receive a different level of publicly funded protection while in the UK.
The decision was based on his changed status after he stopped being a full-time working royal.
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for overseeing security arrangements for the royal family and others, working alongside the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office, and the royal household.
In February last year, a judge rejected Harry’s challenge after he and Meghan quit as senior working royals, was lawful, ruling the decision was neither irrational nor unfair.
At a two-day hearing in April, barristers for the duke told the Court of Appeal that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” by the Home Office and that his safety, security and life are “at stake”.
Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Duke, said al-Qaeda had called for Harry to be “murdered” after Ravec downgraded his UK security.
She argued the decision was “unlawful” as it failed to consider the risks of a potential attack.
Fatima also stated that Harry 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”.
Harry later echoed these claims in a mid-April interview with the Telegraph, saying the removal of his police protection was an attempt to prevent him and Meghan Markle from leaving the Royal Family and starting a new life.
He added his “worst fears” about the loss of his security were confirmed by evidence presented in private during his April appeal hearing with the Home Office.
Ravec’s legal team has consistently defended the 2020 decision, criticising Harry’s appeal as a “continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.
They argued his case relied on a selective reading of the evidence and the judgment, taken out of context and ignoring the bigger picture.
