The 39-year-old, younger son of King Charles III, who relocated with his family to the US after stepping back as a frontline royal, had argued that he was treated wrongly in the government's decision to change the level of his UK taxpayer-funded personal security.
Prince Harry on Wednesday lost a legal challenge against the British government over the level of his security protection when he is in the UK, with a High Court judge in London ruling that the decision to remove police protection was not “unlawful or irrational”.
The 39-year-old, younger son of King Charles III, who relocated with his family to the US after stepping back as a frontline royal, had argued that he was treated wrongly in the government's decision to change the level of his UK taxpayer-funded personal security.
His lawyers told the court that it was "unlawful and unfair" to take such an approach to his protection while he is in his home country. However, Judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that the decision to remove police protection was not “unlawful or irrational”.
"Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry – the Duke of Sussex] relief,” said Lane. "This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different," he said.
The bulk of the court proceedings were held in private because of the confidential nature of evidence over security measures. The case goes back to February 2020, following a decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) – delegated by the UK Home Office on security – to review the senior royal’s security profile.
The UK government had told the court the case should be dismissed because RAVEC was entitled to conclude that Prince Harry’s protection should be "bespoke" and considered on a "case-by-case" basis given his lack of full-time royal duties in the country. Last year, Prince Harry lost a legal bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection when he was visiting the UK.