Prince Harry Loses Appeal on Decision to Downgrade His U.K. Security

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over a decision to downgrade the taxpayer-funded security he and his family will receive during their visits to the U.K. 

In a ruling issued Friday, May 2, an appeals court in London upheld a U.K. High Court decision from last February that stated the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) was allowed to downgrade the protection status for the Duke of Sussex and his family. The new arrangement will allow the U.K. government to provide Harry, Meghan Markle, and their children with a “bespoke” level of protection: They will have to provide advanced notice of their visits, and security will be assigned based on things like travel plans and a threat level assessment. 

RAVEC — which authorizes security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office — changed the protection status for the Duke of Sussex in February 2020, after Harry and Markle stepped away from their royal family duties and left the U.K. for Canada (before later settling in California). RAVEC said that if Harry and his family were only going to visit the U.K. occasionally, their security detail could be assessed on a case by case basis. 

Harry, who has long made privacy and safety a key issue for him and his family, eventually challenged the ruling. He and his legal team argued that RAVEC failed to properly consider his circumstances and conduct a risk assessment when they made the decision in 2020.

In a statement, Harry explained his motives for taking legal action: “This process has only ever been about ensuring my safety and that of my immediate family when we are in the United Kingdom, so that we may safely visit my home country with the same level of security that other governments deem necessary for our protection. My ask has been simple: that the standard protocols for security and risk assessments be applied to me in the same way they are to others — including people who have never carried out any public functions on behalf of the State.” 

At a hearing on the appeal last month, Harry’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, said the “bespoke” security offering was not “better,” and suggested the Duke was being “singled out for different, unjustified, and inferior treatment.” Fatima also argued that Harry was not seeking the same level of protection as working members of the royal family, but rather a fair process in deciding so. 

In the appeals decision, one of the judges acknowledged that Harry had made ‘powerful and moving arguments, and that it was plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system.” But the judge ultimately cast doubt on whether Harry’s “sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to RAVEC’s decision.” 

Ultimately, the appeals court said that Sir Richard Mottram, the (now former) head of RAVEC who had decided to downgrade Harry’s security, acted properly, even if he technically did not follow the usual procedures for conducting a full review of the Duke’s situation. 

The court ruled that RAVEC gave “compelling reasons” for making its decision: “The Duke was, in effect, stepping in and out of the short of protection provided by RAVEC,” a summary of the ruling states. “Outside the U.K., he was outside that cohort, but when in the U.K., his security would be considered as appropriate depending on the circumstances. It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate. Indeed, it seemed sensible.” 

In his statement, Harry argued that the court’s ruling actually “confirms” that RAVEC — which is comprised, he noted, of senior officials from the Royal Household, Home Office, and Metropolitan Police — had “failed to follow its own mandated processes for me, which re applied to all other high-risk and high-profile individuals.” He continued, “Given my profound concerns over this issue, I will be writing to the Home Secretary to ask her to urgently examine the matter and review the RAVEC process.” 

Harry went on to call his legal action a “last resort,” but said it had “uncovered shocking truths” about the REVAC process, including that the “Royal Household are key-decision-makers… and my sole representation for matters regarding my safety.” He said that the legal challenge led him to learn “the names of all those involved, many of whom retired immediately after playing their part.” 

Near the end of his statement, Harry said: “It’s true that I have been treated as an exception on this issue. The conditions of my security were not made based on threat, risk, and impact, they were made based on my role — one that my wife and I wanted to maintain, but that we ultimately refused. RAVEC’s ability to make decisions outside of its own policies and the so-called political sensitives of my case have prevailed over the need for fair and consistent decision-making. The court has decided to defer to this, revealing a sad truth: my hands are tied in seeking legal recourse against the establishment.”

He even went on to reference his mother, the late Princess Diana, saying, “This all comes from the same institutions that preyed upon my mother, that openly campaigned for the removal of our security, and that continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children, while at the same time protecting the very power that they should be holding accountable.”

This story was updated at 3:47 p.m. ET with quotes from a statement released by Prince Harry.