Royal | News - Prince Ricardo De La Cerda
Prince Harry has lost his High Court challenge against the Government over his security protection when visiting the UK.
He had attempted to overturn a ruling that saw his security status downgraded after he stopped being a “working royal” but in a ruling on Wednesday, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected Harry’s case.
Sir Peter found “there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision” to revise his security, adding: “Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational. The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness.”
In his 52-page partially redacted ruling, Sir Peter said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”. He added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”
The committee that arranges security for members of the Royal Family and other VIPs – known as Ravec – decided in February 2020 that the Duke of Sussex would no longer have the automatic level of security for senior royals.
Instead the level of security would be arranged depending on the perceived risk, as it is with other high-profile visiting dignitaries. Harry has taken legal action against that decision.
A Home Office spokesperson: “We are pleased that the Court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further. 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”
At a hearing in December, Harry’s lawyers told the court that he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision to change the level of his taxpayer-funded personal security.
They said 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”.
His lawyers added that Harry believes his children cannot “feel at home” in the UK if it is “not possible to keep them safe” there.
The Government called for Hary’s claim to be dismissed, arguing that Ravec – which falls under the Home Office’s remit – was entitled to conclude the duke’s protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.
Home Office lawyers said the duke was no longer a member of the group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec, but he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”.
The court was told that it was “simply incorrect” to suggest that there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales – Harry’s mother – was raised as part of the decision.
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.
Among the royal aides on the committee was Sir Edward Young, private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth.
Harry’s lawyers argued there were tensions between Sir Edward and the duke and as such the royal official should not have been part of the decision making.