Prince Harry was dealt a huge blow on Wednesday as he lost his legal battle for tax-payer-funded security protection for his family during visits to the UK.
The Duke of Sussex was contesting a decision that downgraded his security status when he stopped being a working royal back in 2020, along with his wife, Meghan Markle. The couple had decided to step back as senior working royals in a bid to become financially independent.
During the legal battle, Prince Harry argued he had been treated unfairly with the changes in protection and still faced security threats.
A 52-page document revealed Harry was “furious” at the outcome as he demanded to know the identity of the person ultimately behind the decision.
Harry said in six words “I would like that person’s name”, referncing the ruling which was made public over his claimed right to be granted automatic police protection.
The Home Office argued that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) “considered that it was not appropriate to support an outcome whereby wealthy individuals could ‘buy’ Protective Security from specialist police officers (potentially including armed officers), in circumstances where RAVEC has determined that the public interest does not warrant that individual receiving such Protective Security on a publicly-funded basis.”
Sir Peter Lane, the judge of the High Court in London, ruled that there was no unlawfulness in the initial decision to strip the Sussexes of their security.
A statement read out on Harry’s behalf said: “The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the United States.
“That cannot happen if it is not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil. I can’t put my wife in danger like that and given my experiences in life I’m reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too.”
It also emerged that the late Queen Elizabeth felt it was “imperative” for her grandson to have “effective” security as revealed in a letter written by her private secretary Sir Edward Young in 2020.
Harry also claimed his family was endangered when visiting the UK because of the hostile treatment towards him and his wife, Meghan Markle – both by news media and online trolling.
However, critics have pointed out that other non-working royals, such as Zara Tindall, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, do not have state-funded protection.
During the verdict on February 28, the High Court Judge said: “I do not consider that there was any procedural unfairness, such as might vitiate the decision.” The court also found that there was no unlawfulness in the decision reached to strip him of his taxpayer-funded security.
In response to the ruling on Wednesday, 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.”
Harry and his wife Meghan Markle moved to the US after quitting as working royals and the Prince has since expressed concern that his family is at risk if he brings them to the UK due to the loss of his security.
