Prince Harry loses legal challenge over change to personal security while in UK
The duke’s lawyers previously told the court that he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” by the royal family, ITV News' John Ray reports
The Duke of Sussex has lost his High Court challenge against the Home Office over a decision to reduce the level of his personal security when visiting the UK.
Harry took legal action against the government department over the February 2020 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 after stepping down as a working member of the royal family.
Following a hearing in December, Mr Justice Lane refused the duke’s application for a judicial review of the security ruling.
He said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”, and called the decision of February 2020 "legally sound”.
Harry's legal team said they would appeal the decision.
Harry took legal action after being told he would no longer be given the 'same degree' of publicly-funded protection when in the country. ITV News Correspondent John Ray reports
The duke’s lawyers previously told the court he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision to change the level of his taxpayer-funded personal security.
They said a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a “successful attack” on him meant the approach to his protection was “unlawful and unfair”.
The court was told Harry believes his children cannot “feel at home” in the UK if it is “not possible to keep them safe” there.
Mr Justice Lane dismissed the claim the Home Office had not considered the threat of a "successful attack" and said that a threat to an individual "lies at the heart of the rationale for Ravec's existence".
In redacted court documents released on Wednesday, it was revealed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will receive changes to their security protection in New York City.
A letter, submitted as evidence during the December hearings, from the Chief of Intelligence in the New York City Police Department said he is “aware of certain changes to the security posture that will be afforded to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in light of the security incident that took place" last year.
It refers to an incident in May 2023 when the couple were involved in, what their spokesperson described as, a "near catastrophic" two-hour car chase.
An investigation by New York City police found "reckless" and "dangerous behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question".
In the judge's ruling, Mr Justice Lane states Harry said if paparazzi could get that close, then so too could someone with intent to harm.
He added: "Whilst this may be true, it sheds no light on the risk of there being persons with such hostile intent."
But in the UK, the government dismissed Harry's claims and argued that Ravec – which falls under the Home Office’s remit – was entitled to conclude the duke’s protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.
Home Office lawyers said the duke was no longer a member of the group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec, but he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”.
Separately in the documents, Harry noted an incident when attending a WellChild garden party event in London after the changes to his security were made.
In June 2021, paparazzi allegedly ambushed Harry's vehicle at several points, posing a "physical and mental" risk to the duke.
A witness statement from another member of the car said that being cornered by the paparazzi made them feel like “sitting ducks”.
Adding: “We all know that the duke’s mother died at least partly as a result of the gross negligence of the paparazzi following her vehicle.”
The Duke of Sussex made a brief appearance via video calling for WellChild Awards nominations on the same day he lost the High Court challenge against the Home Office
The Home Office's lawyers response in court was to reiterate that it was the first occasion the group had implemented the 2020 decision and it was therefore “always likely to take longer than it has in response to future requests”.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.”
The security case was one of three remaining live High Court cases brought by the duke, alongside claims over allegations of unlawful information gathering against publishers News Group Newspapers (NGN) and Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Earlier this month, Harry settled the remaining parts of his phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers.
This is the Royal Rota - our weekly podcast about the royal family, with ITV News Royal Editor Chris Ship and Producer Lizzie Robinson.