The Duke of Sussex has said his "worst fears" about the withdrawal of his police protection were confirmed by evidence heard in private during his legal battle against the Home Office.
Prince Harry, 40, who appeared on both days of the two-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice also told The Telegraph that he was "exhausted" and "overwhelmed" by the legal battle.
The Duke, who stepped back as a senior royal with wife Meghan in 2020, is challenging the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the 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 UK.
Part of the hearing was held in private this year in order for the court to hear confidential evidence.
WATCH: Duke of Sussex’s ‘life at stake’, court told in security challenge
As he left court on Wednesday, Harry told the newspaper that "people would be shocked by what’s being held back," adding that his "worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad".
Harry arriving for the second day of the hearing on Wednesday
The Telegraph reported that Harry suggested the decision was an attempt to prevent him and his wife from quitting as working royals and moving abroad – which Buckingham Palace sources have strongly denied.
Harry said: "We were trying to create this happy house."
Challenging the Home Office
The Duke's appeal comes after retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled last year that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after Harry and Meghan quit as senior working royals, was lawful.
The Home Office, which has legal responsibility for the committee's decisions, is opposing the appeal, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court that decisions were taken on a "case-by-case" basis.
Harry and Meghan moved to the US in 2020 after stepping back as senior royals
Ravec's final decision on 28 February 2020 stated that Metropolitan Police protection would no longer be appropriate after the Sussexes' departure, and that they should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.
It was decided that the Duke and Duchess would instead receive a "bespoke" security service, whereby they would be required to give 30 days notice of any plans to travel to the UK, with each visit being assessed for threat levels and whether protection is needed.
The status of Prince Harry's legal claims
Challenge against the Home Office over UK security arrangements
In 2024, a High Court judge dismissed Harry's claim against the Home Office over security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK.
The Duke challenged a February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the remit of the department, after being told he would no longer be given the "same degree" of personal protective security when visiting.
Harry's lawyers said he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" in the decision, arguing 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 Government argued Ravec was entitled to conclude the Duke's protection should be "bespoke" and considered on a "case-by-case" basis.
Retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair, claiming Harry's lawyers had taken "an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process".
Harry was given permission to challenge Sir Peter's ruling in June last year. The appeal against the ruling is being heard on 8 to 9 April in London.
Unlawful information-gathering allegations against Associated Newspapers
Harry is one of seven high-profile people, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, bringing legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail over allegations it carried out or commissioned unlawful information gathering.
The firmly denied allegations against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) include the hiring of private investigators to place listening devices inside cars; the "blagging" of private records; and the accessing and recording of private phone conversations.
At a preliminary hearing, the publisher asked a judge to rule in its favour without a trial – arguing the legal challenges against it were brought "far too late".
The Duke made a surprise appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the proceedings in March 2023, where his lawyers argued that those bringing legal action were "thrown off the scent" and not aware of being targeted, having believed "categorical denials" from ANL over any involvement in unlawful activity.
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in November 2023 that the publisher had failed to deliver a "knockout blow" to the early-stage legal challenges, allowing them to continue.
The full trial could be held in early 2026.
Settlement with News Group Newspapers
Harry alleged he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun and published the now-defunct News Of The World.
Shortly before an up-to-10-week trial was due to begin earlier this year, the Duke and NGN reached an agreement including a "full and unequivocal apology" and "substantial" damages, announced on 22 January.
NGN apologised to Harry for intrusion between 1996 and 2011, including "incidents of unlawful activities" by private investigators working for The Sun.
The publisher also apologised to the Duke for phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators at the News of the World, which closed in 2011.
"We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages," the NGN statement said.
The publisher also apologised for the impact of the "serious intrusion" into the private life of Harry's late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.
An NGN spokesperson previously said its apology to Harry covered "incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun, not by journalists, during the period 1996-2011".
They added: "There are strong controls and processes in place at all our titles today to ensure this cannot happen now. There was no voicemail interception on The Sun."
Lord Tom Watson, former Labour deputy leader, who was also taking legal action against the publisher, settled his claim as well.
Reporting by PA.
Duke of Sussex's 'life at risk'
At the end of the two-day appeal on Wednesday, Shaheed Fatima KC, for the Duke, said the "human dimension" of the case must not be forgotten.
Harry was not joined by his wife Meghan and their two children in the UK
She continued: "There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security, and whose life is at stake.
"There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect."
Harry is appealing the Home Office's decision over security for his family
The Home Office is defending the appeal, previously telling the court the challenge "involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture".
At the end of the hearing, judge Sir Geoffrey Vos said the Court of Appeal’s decision would be given in writing at a later date, which was "most unlikely" to be before Easter.
Listen: How Harry found out about Charles's health scare
ROYAL FAN? JOIN THE CLUB
Welcome to The HELLO! Royal Club, where thousands of royal fans like you get to delve deeper into the wonderful world of royalty every day. Want to join them? Just click the button below for a list of club benefits and joining information.
Sign up to HELLO! Daily for all the latest and best royal coverage
By entering your details, you are agreeing to HELLO! Magazine User Data Protection Policy. You can unsubscribe at any time. For more information please click here.
© Getty Images
© Getty Images
© PA Images via Getty Images
© Getty Images
