The Duke of Sussex has lost a challenge at the Court of Appeal over his personal security arrangements while in the UK.
Prince Harry, 40, challenged 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 country.
At a two-day hearing in April, barristers for the Duke told the Court of Appeal that he was "singled out" for "inferior treatment" and that his safety, security and life are "at stake".
The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec's decisions, opposed the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that Ravec's decision was taken in a "unique set of circumstances" and that there was "no proper basis for challenging it.
© Getty ImagesIn a ruling on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry's appeal.
Reading a summary of the decision, Sir Geoffrey said: "The Duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.
"Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate."
He continued: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible."
© GettySir Geoffrey also said Ravec's decision was "understandable and perhaps predictable".
Harry did not attend the ruling on Friday.
The judgment
In his 21-page written judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos said he did not think the Duke had been "able to demonstrate that the judge was wrong to determine" that Sir Richard Mottram, then chairman of Ravec, had "good reason to depart" from its policy document.
He said: "In this area of high political sensitivity, the court will inevitably have considerable respect for Sir Richard as a decision maker, whose expertise and experience in the field of Royal protection is probably unrivalled."
© GettyThe judge also said that the decisions made "were not to deprive the claimant of all protection for all time," adding: "The decision letter recorded that decisions would be made about the appropriate protection for him on a case-by-case basis when more was known about his visits to the UK."
Harry's response
In an interview with the BBC, where he also expressed his hopes to reconcile with his family, Harry spoke out about the judgement. "I think that based on the judgment that the court has put out today, it clearly states that Ravec are not constrained by law," he said. "Again, I wish somebody had said that from the beginning."
He called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to take action over the ruling. He added: "I would ask Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, to look at this very, very carefully and I would ask her to review Ravec and its members, because if it is an expert body, then what is the Royal Household's role there, if it is not to influence and decide what they want for the members of their household?"
© BBCHe also stated: "I think what really worries me more than anything else about today's decision, depending on what happens next, it sets a new precedent that security can be used to control members of the family, and effectively, what it does is imprison other members of the family from being able to choose a different life.
"If, for me, security is conditional on having an official role, one that both myself and my wife wish to carry on, but then was rejected, not by Ravec, was rejected by the Royal Household, and the result to that is you lose your security. That basically says you can't live outside of their control if you want to be safe."
Home Office statement
A Home Office spokesperson said: "We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government's position in this case.
“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."
'Felt forced to step back'
Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that its decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful.
Shaheed Fatima KC, for the Duke, told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex "felt forced to step back" from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they "were not being protected by the institution".
© GettyThe Government previously argued Ravec was entitled to conclude Harry's protection should be "bespoke" and considered on a "case-by-case" basis.
Desire to bring children to the UK
In December 2023, Harry told the High Court in an emotional statement: "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 US.
"That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil."
Prince Archie, who turns six on Tuesday, and Princess Lilibet, three, last visited the UK in June 2022, which coincided with the late Queen's Platinum Jubilee celebrations and Lilibet's first birthday.
© NetflixArchie was born at the Portland Hospital in London in 2019, spending the first six months of his life living in Windsor at the family's former UK home, Frogmore Cottage.
The Duke and Duchess bought their home in Montecito in July 2020, around a year before welcoming daughter Lilibet, who was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital on 4 June 2021.
