Prince Harry loses bid for personal police protection in UK at London High Court
Prince Harry has lost his bid for taxpayer-funded UK security protection for his family.
Sir Peter Lane, the judge of London’s High Court, ruled Wednesday that there was no unlawfulness in the initial decision to strip the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of their security in Feb. 2020.
London’s High Court found that any departure from the policy was justified and that the decision was not influenced by unfairness.
This now means that Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, will have to pay out of pocket for their family’s security when visiting the UK.
Harry, 39, was not in attendance for the ruling.
“We are pleased that the Court has found in favor of the Government’s position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further,” a Home Office spokesperson told The Post in a statement Wednesday about the ruling.
“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.”
Harry and the “Suits” alum, 42, were stripped of funded police protection after they stepped back from being “working royals” and moved to the US in 2020.
Harry’s lawyers had sought a judicial review of the government’s refusal of his offer to hire police officers as his private security detail, which was initially denied by London’s High Court in May 2023.
After the duke’s lawyers appealed the ruling, a judge granted permission for a full hearing to take place that would review the Home Office’s decision to strip the Sussexes of security.
The father of two appeared in court on home soil back in December where his challenge of the initial ruling was heard over a two-and-a-half day period.
At the ruling, the High Court judge slammed Harry’s claim that he was entitled to a full risk analysis by the Risk Management Board (RMB).
“The claimant had no right to require RAVEC to initiate a fresh RMB process in the light of his changed situation,” Judge Lane said.
“In determining what fairness demands in this context, it is important to understand that undergoing an RMB assessment is not a right or even a benefit. It is, as Sir James Eadie KC (for the Home Office) submits, an analytical tool.”
“I do not consider that there was any procedural unfairness, such as might vitiate the decision,” he added.
The case was held in private over privacy concerns.
Harry told a hearing that security concerns were preventing him from visiting his home turf.
However, Judge Lane said that “there is no merit in this contention.”
“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children,” Harry last year told the court in a written statement read out by his lawyers. “That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe.”
“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too,” he added.
Harry initially lost a legal bid in May to challenge the British government’s decision barring him from paying for police protection during his visits to the UK.
The exiled royal’s lawyers said in an appeal that the decision had been made with “procedural unfairness” as he had not been able to make “informed representations” before his application was denied.
In the first stage of the case, the duke’s lawyers asked Justice Swift to grant permission for a full hearing, which was ultimately granted.
Justice Swift said it was “arguable” whether the Duke “should have had the opportunity to make representations direct to Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC).”
