Prince Harry Loses Legal Battle Over Full Taxpayer-Funded Police Protection When Visiting the UK
- Victor Nwoko
- May 2
- 3 min read
Prince Harry has officially lost his legal challenge against the UK Home Office regarding his demand for taxpayer-funded armed police protection while in the United Kingdom. The decision, delivered by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, marks the end of a costly legal effort unless the Duke of Sussex appeals to the Supreme Court.
The 39-year-old royal, who now lives in California with his wife Meghan Markle and their two children, had argued that the removal of police protection after stepping down as a senior working royal in 2020 placed his life at risk. His legal team insisted that he was being unfairly “singled out” and subjected to “inferior treatment” by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), the body responsible for assigning protective security on behalf of the Home Office.
During the two-day hearing in April, Prince Harry’s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, argued that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex felt forced to leave their royal roles due to lack of adequate institutional protection. She further revealed that following Ravec's decision, Prince Harry's security team was alerted that al-Qaida had called for his assassination, claiming that killing him “would please the Muslim community.” Despite this, Ravec did not obtain input from the Risk Management Board (RMB), the expert body typically involved in such decisions. Instead, it implemented what it called a “bespoke” security arrangement for Harry.
Fatima asserted that the term “bespoke” did not equate to better protection and instead signified discriminatory treatment. She stated that Prince Harry was not demanding automatic reinstatement of his previous security but instead requested a fair, consistent evaluation under Ravec's usual procedures.
The Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, countered that the decision was lawful and appropriate given the Duke’s changed status. Sir James described Harry’s arguments as misrepresentative and selective, noting that Ravec's decision was made in a unique context and tailored specifically to the Duke’s personal circumstances. He clarified that Harry was no longer part of the core group whose security status is regularly reviewed but would be reconsidered on a case-by-case basis as needed.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, while acknowledging the emotional weight behind Harry’s arguments, concluded that there was no legal basis to overturn Ravec’s decision. “These were powerful and moving arguments,” he said, “but I concluded, having studied the detail, I could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument.”
The court’s ruling means Harry must now pay legal costs estimated at £1.5 million, including those incurred by the Home Office. The British taxpayer has already covered at least £500,000 in government legal fees related to the case.
The verdict also highlights ongoing tensions between Prince Harry and the royal establishment. While King Charles III and Harry are understood to hold differing opinions on the litigation, the outcome leaves the Sussex family without state-funded armed protection during any future UK visits.
The Duke attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, actively participating and consulting with his legal team. Parts of the proceedings were held privately to discuss sensitive security matters.
Unless Prince Harry chooses to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, the current ruling stands, marking a significant setback in his campaign for restored UK police protection.
Comments