The Duke of Sussex faces an estimated £1 million legal bill after losing his High Court case over his entitlement to taxpayer-funded security when in the UK.
Prince Harry, 39, will probably have to pay his own lawyers as well as the legal costs of the Home Office unless he successfully appeals against the ruling.
The Home Office revealed that its legal costs had already reached £407,000 by October last year. That was before a three-day trial in December.
The duke hired the “celebrity law firm” Schillings International to represent him along with four barristers, meaning that his own legal bills are likely to be higher. The loser in High Court cases normally pays both sets of bills.
The Home Office costs until October included £265,437 for the Government Legal Department and £137, 864 for barristers since Harry filed his legal complaint in September 2021.
Advertisement
Harry has said he plans to launch an appeal and “obtain justice”.
He took legal action over a Home Office decision to reduce his security provision after he stepped down from official royal duties.
His legal team said the duke should not be treated differently to any other VIP who would receive specialist police protection and argued that any attack on Harry would also damage the nation’s reputation.
However, Mr Justice Lane dismissed the duke’s application for a judicial review of the decision, criticising his “inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the process of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), which rules on security issues.
He said the “evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness” in the decision-making.
Advertisement
In a statement issued shortly after the verdict, a spokesman for Prince Harry confirmed that the duke would fight the ruling. They said: “The Duke of Sussex will appeal today’s judgment which refuses his judicial review claim against the decision-making body Ravec, which includes the Home Office, the royal household and the Met Police.
“Although these are not labels used by Ravec, three categories — as revealed during the litigation — comprise the ‘Ravec cohort’: the role based category, the occasional category and the other VIP category. 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.
• Seven claims Prince Harry was wrong about, according to High Court
“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”
Advertisement
It emerged that the court was shown a copy of a letter from the chief of intelligence in the New York City police department regarding the “security incident” that occurred when the Sussexes visited the city in May last year. It concluded that there was sufficient evidence to arrest two individuals for reckless endangerment after reports that the Sussexes were followed by paparazzi.
The letter mentions “certain changes to the security posture that will be afforded to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex” as a result.
Harry and Meghan announced in January 2020 that they were “stepping back” from their roles as senior members of the royal family because they planned to split their time between the UK and North America.
In February 2021 Buckingham Palace announced the Sussexes would not return as working members of the royal family.
The court case stems from a decision to remove his full cover of police protection after stepping down from his role.
Advertisement
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) — which acts on behalf of the home secretary — ruled that it was not in the public interest for Harry to continue to receive the “same degree” of police security. His security provision, they said, would instead be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The duke’s lawyers argued that he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” than other VIPs. The court was told that Harry believes his children cannot “feel at home” in the UK if it is “not possible to keep them safe” there.
Shaheed Fatima KC, representing Harry, said the risk he faced “arises from his birth and ongoing status as the son of [the King]”. She said the case was about the “unlawful” treatment of the duke. “This case is about the right to safety and security,” she added. “There could not be a right of greater importance to any of us.”
