Prince Harry’s legal battle for taxpayer-funded armed police bodyguards in the UK ended today with him losing the case, leaving him responsible for a £1.5 million bill.
Despite his objections, the Duke of Sussex was informed that his dissatisfaction with the reduced security measures did not present a valid legal argument to challenge the ruling.
Harry believes he has been ‘singled out’ and ‘badly treated’ for ‘unjustified, inferior treatment’ since Megxit five years ago.
His barrister argued that the removal of Met Police armed bodyguards when he is in the UK has left the royal’s life ‘at stake’.
The Duke, who currently resides in California, contested the decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) regarding the level of security detail he should have while in the United Kingdom.
But Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls said in his ruling this afternoon in London that Ravec’s decision ‘were taken as an understandable, and perhaps predictable, reaction to the claimant having stepped back from royal duties and having left the UK to live principally overseas’.
‘These were powerful and moving arguments and that it was plain the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system’, he said.
‘But I concluded, having studied the detail, I could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument to challenge RAVEC’s decision’.
Sir Geoffrey said Harry ‘makes the mistake of confusing superficial analogies’ when comparing himself with other VIPs which had ‘added nothing’ to the legal question.
He added: ‘My conclusion was that the Duke of Sussex’s appeal would be dismissed’.
It means that for now, armed police bodyguards, paid for by the British taxpayer, will not be automatically reinstated for him, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet when they are in the UK. It raises more questions over whether the Sussexes will visit Britain again.
The King and his youngest son are believed to have differing views over Harry’s decision to pursue his legal fight with the Home Office. The Home Secretary is calling for the duke to pay all costs for both sides – a bill approaching £1.5million.
Today the Court of Appeal found against Harry, paving the way for an appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to continue his fight and ever more costs.
In a ruling on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry’s case.
At a two-day hearing in April, barristers for the duke told the Court of Appeal that he was ‘singled out’ for ‘inferior treatment’ and that his safety, security and life are ‘at stake’.
The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposes the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that Ravec’s decision was taken in a ‘unique set of circumstances’ and that there was ‘no proper basis’ for challenging it.
Sir Geoffrey Vos told today’s hearing: ‘Ms Shaheed Fatima KC, leading counsel for the Duke of Sussex, submitted that this case had an important human dimension. She submitted that the Duke of Sussex’s life was at stake because of the decision making in this case. She said that the bespoke process adopted by RAVEC had singled the Duke out for especially inferior treatment.
‘In effect, it had been pre-determined in the decision letter that, on future visits to the UK, the Duke of Sussex would be provided with a lower level of security than had been provided for him throughout his adult life.’
‘The impact of an attack upon him was obviously still just as significant as it had always been. His military service placed him at particular risk.
‘These were powerful and moving arguments, and that it was plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system.
‘But I concluded, having studied the detail of the extensive documentation, I could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument’.
Sir Geoffrey Vos said he did not think Harry had been ‘able to demonstrate that the judge was wrong to determine’ that Sir Richard Mottram, then chairman of Ravec, had ‘good reason to depart’ from its policy document.
He said: ‘In this area of high political sensitivity, the court will inevitably have considerable respect for Sir Richard as a decision maker, whose expertise and experience in the field of Royal protection is probably unrivalled.’
Sir Geoffrey continued: ‘In one sense, the claimant’s dissatisfaction with the security that has been provided on visits since June 2021 has nothing to do with the decisions reached in the decision letter or the absence of any risk analysis from the risk management board.
‘It is simply concerned with the outcome of the process that has been followed in augmenting his protection when he has been in the UK for a variety of royal and other events.
‘The claimant disagrees with Sir Richard, Ravec and the current chair on these matters.
‘But none of that disagreement supports a legally sustainable public law claim to vitiate the decisions taken in the decision letter or subsequently.
‘Those decisions were taken as an understandable, and perhaps predictable, reaction to the claimant having stepped back from royal duties and having left the UK to live principally overseas.’
The Master of the Rolls even said the decision was ‘an understandable, and perhaps predictable, reaction to [Harry] having stepped back from Royal duties and having left the UK’.
He said: ‘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…but that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.’
The judge cited ‘compelling reasons’ for the security decision and said on one point that it was ‘impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate’, adding: ‘Indeed, it seems sensible.’
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.
Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that its decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful.
Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, 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 Qaida 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 continued that Ravec did not get an assessment from an ‘expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB’ and came up with a ‘different and so-called ‘bespoke process’.
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.’
Ms Fatima added: ‘The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family.
‘The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.’
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that the duke’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 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.’
Harry attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, and could be seen taking notes and talking with part of his legal team during the appeal.
Parts of the hearing were held in private, meaning the press and public could not be in court, to discuss confidential matters.
A Home Office spokesperson said today: ‘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.’
