Prince Harry lost his bid for UK security after claiming he was “singled out” and treated “less favorably” than other royals.
The Duke of Sussex had taken legal action against the Home Office following its decision not to allocate taxpayers’ funds for his personal security detail upon his departure from the Royal Family.
On Wednesday, February 28, a judge, Sir Peter Lane determined that there was no “unlawfulness” in the decision to withdraw Prince Harry’s security, which occurred following Megxit.
Retired High Court Judge added that the decision had been “justified” and was not “irrational” – as it had been dubbed.
“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,” read the court ruling.
Additionally, the court determined that there was no unlawfulness on the part of Ravec regarding its arrangements for some of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain, subsequent to the decision made on February 28, 2020.
Ravec is the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures.
The Sussexes were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
The court said that those conditions were fair and would continue.
Also Read: Prince Harry to Release Tell-All Memoirs in January
Lawyers of Prince Harry Previously on the Case
In 2023, Prince Harry lost a legal bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection when he was visiting the UK.
The case also highlighted worries about diminished security measures since he transitioned away from being a full-time working.
The Duke of Sussex claimed he and his family were endangered when visiting the U.K. because of hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless hounding by news media.
His legal representative contended that the government body responsible for assessing Prince Harry’s security requirements acted illogically and neglected to adhere to its own protocols, which should have mandated a risk assessment of the duke’s safety.
The Duke’s lawyers also previously told the court that he was ‘singled out’ and treated ‘less favorably’ in the decision to change the level of his taxpayer-funded personal security.
Also Read: Instances When King Charles Can Delegate Powers to Prince William Amid Sickness
Home Office Response
The Home Office, however, reiterated its stance that security arrangements for Prince Harry were determined on a case-by-case basis.
The Home Office lawyers argued he was no longer part of a group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec.
They said rather he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”.
In response to the challenge initiated in December, Home Office representatives assured the High Court that Prince Harry would still receive publicly funded police security.
The tailored arrangements however would be “bespoke arrangements, specifically tailored to him”, rather than the automatic security provided for full-time working royals.
