Prince Harry has lost his High Court challenge against the Home Office over their decision to downgrade his security when he is in the UK.

In a ruling on Wednesday, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane dismissed Harry’s challenge over the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), a body under the department’s remit, that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the UK.

The Duke of Sussex will appeal the ruling, his legal spokesperson said.

The Home Office stripped Harry of the automatic level of security for senior royals after he stepped back from his role and moved to the US in 2020. But his lawyers argue that there is “no good reason for singling out the claimant [Prince Harry] this way”.

During a three-day hearing last December, Harry’s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, said in a written submission that the risk that Harry faces “arises from his birth and ongoing status, as the son of HM The King” and that his position “has been – and remains – that he should be given state security in light of the threats/risks he faces.”

IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE POLL ABOVE, CLICK HERE

The Government said Harry’s claim should be dismissed, arguing Ravec was entitled to conclude the duke’s protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.

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 judge said he accepted comments from Sir Richard Mottram, the former chairman of Ravec, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry’s legal arguments in February 2020, “I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons”.

Speaking about Harry’s security on GB News, royal expert Angela Levin claimed that Harry “hasn’t quite realised that he’s not on the same level as he was, two, three years ago.”

So what do YOU think? Should Harry’s security be funded by taxpayer? Vote in our poll and join the debate in the comment section below.