HARRY LOSS
Prince Harry LOSES security bid in damning judgement after slamming ‘less favourable’ treatment – but he will appeal
Find out which royals get round-the-clock protection - and who doesn't
PRINCE Harry has lost his legal fight against the removal of his government-funded UK security, after moaning he had been treated "less favourably" than other royals.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, has vowed to appeal after losing his case against the Home Office over its refusal to spend taxpayers' money on bodyguards when he left the Royal Family.
6
6
6
A judge this morning ruled there had not been any "unlawfulness" in the call to pull Harry's security, which came about after Megxit.
Retired High Court Judge Sir Peter Lane added the decision had been "justified", and was not "irrational" - as it had been dubbed.
But the Duke of Sussex has vowed to appeal the judgement and claimed he is "not asking for preferential treatment".
The Sussexes were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
Harry moaned he was unable to return with Meghan, 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.
It was this morning ruled those conditions were fair, and would continue.
While the cost of the Royal Family's security is a secret due to national security, the Institute for Government think tank reported it could cost the taxpayer as much as £100million.
Most read in Royals
It's not known how much Prince Harry's full security would have cost, the Mirror reported he and Meghan spend £1.58m a year for protection in the US.
The High Court heard in May last year how Harry had brought a case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
He had won the bid to take the Government to court the year prior.
These are the two things Prince Harry must do if he's ever to win over the British public
During the hearing, Ravec claimed that allowing Harry to pay for his own protective security would be contrary to the public interest and undermine public confidence in the Met Police.
His legal team argued he was not given an opportunity to make representations to the committee before it turned down his offer.
They also said the decision could not be reconciled with rules that expressly permit charging for certain police services.
This included using privately-funded police at one-off events such as football matches, marathons and celebrity weddings.
Harry's lawyers argued he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision.
However, Home Office lawyers argued he was no longer part of a group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec.
They said rather he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”.
The decision was not irrational.
Sir Peter Lane
The findings of December's hearing published today read: "The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020.
"Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational.
"The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness. Even if such
procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant relief.
"This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially
different."
It added: "The court has also found that there has been no unlawfulness on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain, following the decision of 28 February 2020."
In May last year, Harry lost a legal bid over his security after being slammed for trying to use the Met Police as “private bodyguards for the wealthy”.
The Duke of Sussex had attempted to appeal against a decision not to let him hire armed police bodyguards when he visits the UK.
Today a legal spokesman added: "The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.
"In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to The Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis. The Duke’s case is that the so-called “bespoke process” that applies to him, is no substitute for that risk analysis.
"The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing."
Inside Prince Harry's fury as UK security team was pulled after Megxit
Prince Harry went to officials with many concerns amid his battle to get security while in the UK.
Today's findings have laid out some of them - including how Diana was treated, who's taking responsibility for his family and how he believed threat levels were raised because of 'racism'.
Harry 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 greater risk, as
mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen. I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please …”.
The prince also asked if anyone had thought about "the consequences" of the decision to cut his security.
He said: "Prove to me that someone has actually thought about the consequences without being punitive, which is how most of the decisions have been made in the last couple of months."
Harry outlined: "The obvious difference aside from that is the fact that I was born into this and the threat will never decrease because of my status regarding the Family”.
He wanted to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused - with insiders insisting cops are not "guns for hire".
Following today's ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: "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."
It was revealed that when Harry visited King Charles after his cancer diagnosis he had full security protection.
During a segment on TalkTV, royal expert Sarah Hewson explained that Harry is “always” covered by the royal security detail when he’s in the UK for “official duties".
She said: “Now, of course he didn’t have the 28 days the Home Office said he would need to give notice of in order to put together a full security plan, but these are extraordinary circumstances that we find ourselves in, and the Royal Family find themselves in."
The Duke of Sussex, 39, landed at Heathrow at lunchtime on February 6 following a 10-and-a-half hour overnight flight.
Read More on The US Sun
He was whisked to London while Charles, 75, delayed a helicopter flight to Sandringham so they could hold their first meeting in 16 months.
The expert added that Harry received the same level of security when he came for his father's coronation last year.
What level of security protection are working royals entitled to?
A HANDFUL of working members of the Royal Family have 24/7 protection - but others are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Senior officers are assigned to specific members of the household and are supported by others, one expert told The Sun.
He claimed will always be a minimum of one protection officer with a member of the Royal Family, but the protection team is increased according to threat and risk.
King Charles, Queen Camilla and the Wales' family have round-the-clock protection and the monarch also has a corridor officer based outside his bedroom door, the expert said.
The Express reported the likes of Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex are given protection when they are taking part in official engagements - but do not have taxpayer-funded security at their homes.
Prince Andrew had his taxpayer-funded security removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
His daughters Princess Beatrice and Prince Eugenie are said to not have funded security as they are not full-time working royals - and are employed elsewhere.
Robert Jobson, an award-winning royal author, explained: "According to a 1917 Letters of Patent issued by King George V, the title of HRH Prince or Princess is passed to ‘The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm.
“Both Harry and Meghan know this. Archie, on the other hand, did not qualify to become a prince automatically.
“In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Letters Patent to expand on a previous decree that granted such a title only to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales."
6
6
6