Prince Harry LOSES appeal against decision to axe publicly-funded security after pleading ‘my life is at stake’
PRINCE Harry has lost his appeal against the decision to axe his publicly-funded security after moaning: "My life is at stake".
The Duke of Sussex brought the case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
Harry claimed he was "singled out" after his round-the-clock royal protection was stripped in the wake of Megxit.
He also attempted to sue the Home Office because it refused to spend taxpayers' money on bodyguards after he left the Royal Family.
Earlier this month, Harry returned to the UK for a two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London.
It came after High Court judge Sir Peter Lane previously rejected the duke's case and ruled Ravec's approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
Read more news
Now Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis have also ruled against Harry, which could be the final nail in the coffin for his security row.
In his judgement Sir Geoffrey said Harry’s arguments had been “moving” but did not amount to an actual legal challenge.
He added: "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."
Sir Geoffrey continued: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible."
At the appeal hearing, Harry's lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC said he had been "singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment".
The lawyer added: "There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake.
“There is a person sitting behind me who’s being told that he is getting a special and bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
She added: “We say that his presence here and through this appeal is a potent illustration, were one needed, about how much this appeal means to him and family.”
Ms Fatima also touched on Megxit - claiming in written documents that Harry and Meghan Markle felt "forced" to leave to the Royal Family as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.
In court documents, his team highlighted "recent security incidents" surrounding the Duke.
This included Al-Qaeda calling for Harry "to be murdered" after Ravec's decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.
Another refers to a May 2023 incident after "[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City".
But the government argued Harry's "bare disagreement" with the decision to remove his security "does not amount to a ground of appeal".
They claimed that while Harry "disagrees vehemently" with his security arrangements, his views are "largely irrelevant".
What can Prince Harry do next?
By Julia Atherley, Home Affairs Correspondent
Prince Harry could now ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, but there is no indication yet that he will make that challenge.
If he wants to do so, he would have to prove that the law in the case raises a point of general public importance.
Legal convention means he would have to ask at the Court of Appeal first, before then asking the Supreme Court.
But the decision today could mark a final nail in the coffin for Harry who said this fight against the British Home Office was one which “always mattered the most.”
The Home Office also claim they did not act "irrationally" and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry's claim.
Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal "involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees".
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
The royal moaned he was unable to return with Meghan and his children Archie and Lilibet, "because it is too dangerous".
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
Harry also wanted to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused - with insiders insisting cops are not "guns for hire".
In his ruling in February, Sir Peter Lane said there had not been any "unlawfulness" in the call to pull Harry's security.
Read More on The Sun
He said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.
The judge added: "The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”
