Harry’s ‘sense of grievance does not translate into a legal argument to challenge security decision’ – judge
Vos said Harry’s arguments for why he wanted a change in his security arrangements were “powerful and moving”.
But he concluded that, having studied the detailed documents, he could not say that the Duke of Sussex’s “sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec decision”. Vos said the two other judges agreed with his opinion.
Harry had appealed against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office (Britiai’s interior ministry) 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.
Key events
Closing summary
-
The Duke of Sussex lost a court of appeal challenge over his security arrangements while in the UK, allowing the UK government to proceed with a “bespoke”, and cheaper, level of protection to his family.
-
Prince Harry’s taxpayer-funded protection was downgraded in 2020, after he stopped being a working royal and moved abroad with his family.
-
He appealed the government’s decision, with his legal team arguing that the British Home Office had “singled” him out for “inferior treatment”. But on Friday, three judges at the court of appeal rejected this argument.
-
“I could not say that the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec’s decision,” Judge Geoffrey Vos said in his ruling.
-
Vos acknowledged that arguments from Harry’s barrister were “powerful and moving”, and that it was “plain that the duke felt badly treated by the system”.
Thanks for following along. We are closing this blog now. But you can read more about the court of appeal’s ruling and its implications here.
Risk management would have ‘nothing to say’ on ‘critical features’ of Harry’s new security situation – judge
Harry’s legal team had argued in previous hearings that Ravec was at fault for failing to get an assessment from an “expert specialist body”, called the risk management board. It came up with a “bespoke process” for him, which he believed had singled him out for “different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
In his ruling at the court of appeal on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos said:
Even if there had been a risk analysis from the risk management board, it would very likely have only confirmed the threat, vulnerability and impact levels which the Duke of Sussex had faced when earlier risk analyses were undertaken.
But it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation, namely the need for protective security on future uncertain visits and the government’s appetite for risk.
As a reminder, when Prince Harry took a step back from royal duties in 2020, a Home Office committee decided he would no longer get the same level of personal protection provided by the police for senior royals.
The Sussexes 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.
Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos continued:
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…
It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible.
The judge also said Ravec’s decision was “understandable and perhaps predictable”.
Harry’s ‘sense of grievance does not translate into a legal argument to challenge security decision’ – judge
Vos said Harry’s arguments for why he wanted a change in his security arrangements were “powerful and moving”.
But he concluded that, having studied the detailed documents, he could not say that the Duke of Sussex’s “sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec decision”. Vos said the two other judges agreed with his opinion.
Harry had appealed against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office (Britiai’s interior ministry) 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.
Prince Harry loses UK security challenge
The Duke of Sussex has lost a challenge at the court of appeal over his security arrangements while in the UK. More details soon…
Reading a summary of the court of appeal’s judgment, Vos, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, said:
From the Duke of Sussex’s point of view, I said that something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK.
The feed is working again now. Geoffrey Vos is reading out background details of the case.
There are some technical problems with the link from the court. Hopefully the court feed will be reconnected shortly.
The three judges, Lord Justice Bean, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Edis, are about to deliver their judgment. Sir Geoffrey Vos is now delivering his remarks.
“In this case, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, seeks a declaration that the protective security arrangements provided for him on his visits to the United Kingdom are inadequate and unlawful,” he said.
We’re expecting the court of appeal ruling any minute now. It was meant to be delivered around 2pm. You can watch it via the live feed at the top of the blog.
A brief timeline of the Duke of Sussex’s legal challenge over his security in the UK
– September 2021
Prince Harry’s legal team first disputed Ravec’s ruling in September 2021. It came after an incident in London in June 2021, when the Duke of Sussex returned to the UK for the unveiling of a statue of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and his car was reportedly chased by photographers.
– December 2023
The full hearing begins, with Prince Harry saying in a statement that the UK is a place he wants his children “to feel at home” – but said this was not possible under the new downgraded security arrangements.
– February 2024
The retired high court judge Sir Peter Lane concluded that Ravec’s approach to security was not irrational nor procedurally unfair and Harry’s case was dismissed.
At the time, a spokesperson for the prince said he intended to challenge that judgment, adding that Harry “hopes he will obtain justice from the court of appeal”, the second highest court in the UK (below the supreme court).
– April 2024
The Duke of Sussex lost an initial attempt to appeal against the high court decision to back a reduction in his level of personal security when visiting the UK.
– June 2024
Prince Harry was given the go-ahead by the court of appeal to challenge the high court decision after he was able to make his case to the court of appeal directly.
– April 2025
A two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal begins.
As we mentioned in the opening post, at a two-day hearing last month, barristers for Prince Harry told the court of appeal that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety, security and life were “at stake”.
Prince Harry was in court for the hearing, but was not compelled to say anything. Instead, he listened to the government set out its position, reportedly writing in a small notepad and on Post-it notes, which he handed over to his legal team.
The details of the Duke of Sussex’s current security arrangements, and the levels he would like to receive in future, were not disclosed in court for security reasons.
More sensitive information was discussed in a closed hearing, which concluded on 9 April, without any journalists there.
Prince Harry set to discover outcome of court battle over his UK security arrangements
The Duke of Sussex will shortly find out whether or not he’s won a legal case over his security arrangements while in the UK.
Prince Harry’s taxpayer-funded protection was effectively downgraded in 2020, after he stopped being a working royal and moved abroad with his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, to raise their son, Archie.
In March 2020, the couple moved from Vancouver to California, where their daughter – Lilibet – was born a year later.
Harry has argued that it is too dangerous to bring his family back to the UK without sufficient police protection and has taken the government to court.
As he is no longer a working royal, the duke’s security in the UK is now made on a case-by-case basis decided by the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures, known as Ravec.
Harry’s lawyers have accused Britain’s Home Office, or interior ministry, of “singling him out” for “inferior treatment” and say that his safety, security and life are at stake in his appeal against arrangements for his security while in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex has previously said he faces a greater risk than his late mother, with “additional layers of racism and extremism”.
He also believes his family faces an “international threat” and has already highlighted that al Qaida had called for him to be killed after Ravec’s decision.
The Home Office is opposing Harry’s security appeal on Ravec’s behalf as it has legal responsibility over its decisions.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, has said Ravec’s decision for a “bespoke” arrangement was seen to have “positive advantages” as a flexible, tailored approach better suited to the duke’s circumstances.
The judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, will give their decision at London’s court of appeal at 2pm today.
