February 28, 2024, 11:07 GMT
Updated 51 minutes ago
Prince Harry has lost a Supreme Court challenge against the government over the level of his security in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex failed to overturn a previous ruling that saw his security status downgraded after he ceased to be a working royal.
The Supreme Court found that the decision was neither illegal nor irrational.
Prince Harry will seek to appeal the latest ruling. A legal spokesman said he “hopes he gets justice.”
His lawyers had argued that the way the decision was made was unfair, which the Supreme Court ruling said was not the case.
Prince Harry filed suit after being told he would no longer be afforded the same level of publicly funded protection in the country.
The Home Office had said its security during visits to the UK would be managed based on perceived risk, as is the case with other senior dignitaries, and said on Wednesday it was “pleased” with the court's finding.
Home Office lawyers spoke out against the duke's challenge, previously telling the Supreme Court that Prince Harry would still have publicly funded police security but that these would be “bespoke arrangements tailored specifically to him” and not the automatic security intended for full-time royals.
Much of the court proceedings involving security arrangements for high-ranking figures were conducted in camera in December. The ruling by retired Supreme Court judge Sir Peter Lane was published on Wednesday morning.
This could have implications for the Duke's future visits to the UK, as he previously argued that lower levels of security had made it difficult to bring his family into the country.
In the decision, Sir Peter dismissed the Duke's case, finding that the decision to downgrade Prince Harry's security status was not unlawful and that any deviation from policy was justified.
It found that the decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair.
In the 51-page, partially redacted document, Sir Peter said Harry's lawyers had adopted “an inappropriate… interpretation” of how he obtained security through the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), which provides security for members of the royal family and the Royal family regulates other VIPs. It has delegated responsibility from the Home Office and has shares in the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the Royal Household.
The ruling also found that the process “tailor-made” by Ravec for Prince Harry “was and is legally sound.”
Sir Peter elaborated on Prince Harry's position, writing in his ruling that the Duke “believes, given his position within the Royal Family and factors relating to his past, that he should receive safeguards from the State, whenever he is in the UK.” current situations. Ravec did not share this view.”
He continued that in January 2020 the Cabinet Secretary told Prince Harry's private secretary “that the plaintiff should not expect its existing security arrangements to remain the same” and this was “reaffirmed” at a further meeting later that month.
Examples of the prince's safety concerns were also brought to light in the ruling, which highlighted evidence presented during the trial.
It said the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's private secretary sent a letter to then-Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill in February 2020 in which the Duke “could not see how he could have his security lifted unless that was the case.” current risk for him and…” his family had become smaller.”
It said the prince asked: “Who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today , with a greater risk, As mentioned above, given the additional layers of racism and extremism, it is not difficult for someone to take responsibility for what might happen. I would like to please name the person who is willing to take responsibility for this decision.”
Last year, Prince Harry lost a separate court bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection when he visited the United Kingdom, in a case that also raised concerns about reduced security since he stopped working full-time working king is.
In his decision, Sir Peter noted that the Duke's offer to pay for his security would have been rejected “on the basis that that individual is either entitled to the appropriate protection as a member of the Ravec cohort or not”.
image description,
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back from royal duties in 2020
A spokesman for Prince Harry said he would appeal Wednesday's ruling.
“The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but rather a fair and lawful application of Ravec's own rules to ensure that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec's own written policy,” it said in a statement.
They added that “Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a specific risk analysis.”
However, Sir Peter said in his ruling that carrying out a risk assessment “does not constitute a right or even a benefit. It is…an analytical tool.”
Prince Harry's spokesman argued that the “so-called 'bespoke process' that applies to him is not a substitute for this risk analysis.”
They added: “The Duke of Sussex hopes that the Court of Appeal will serve him justice and will not comment further while the case is ongoing.”
Prince Harry, who was not present at the hearing in December, lives in the United States with his wife Meghan and their two children.
The Duke's recent visits to the United Kingdom have been fleeting. Earlier this month, the 39-year-old spent just over 24 hours in the UK after traveling to the country for a 45-minute meeting with his father following King Charles' cancer diagnosis.
Prince Harry's last appearance at a royal occasion was in May during the king's coronation.
This too was short-lived as the Duke left immediately after the ceremony at Westminster Abbey. However, a source told US media portal Page Six at the time that Prince Harry wanted to make “every effort” to return in time for his son Archie's birthday – which took place on the same day.
Harry's strained relationship with his family is also believed to have played a role in the brevity of his visits.
After the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said he was “pleased that the court has ruled in favor of the government's position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.”
They continued: “The UK government’s safeguarding regime is rigorous and proportionate.”
“It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information about these arrangements as doing so could compromise their integrity and impact the safety of individuals.”
While he made no public appearances following the verdict, Prince Harry appeared in a video for a charity of which he is a patron.
In a brief on-camera address to mark the WellChild Award nominations, the Duke praised the “extraordinary strength and spirit” of young people with complex illnesses.