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.
Harry and Meghan stepped back as senior royals in 2020
Sir 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.”
Prince Harry previously said he feels ‘overwhelmed’ and ‘exhausted’ by the legal battle
The 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.”
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”.
Meghan last visited the UK in September 2022 for Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral
The 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.
Archie 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.
The status of 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, but this after a two-day hearing in April 2025, his appeal was dismissed in May 2025.
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.
Recommended videoYou may also likeWATCH: Duke of Sussex’s ‘life at stake’, court told in security challenge
© Getty
© Getty
© Getty
© Netflix
