Prince Harry Loses Police Security Lawsuit in Major Blow

Prince Harry has lost his police security lawsuit against the U.K. government in which he argued far-right extremism had rendered Britain unsafe for him and his family.

Home Office committee RAVEC ruled in 2020 that Harry would no longer have the protection of Metropolitan Police officers after quitting as a working royal, though he has been given them on a case-by-case basis for certain royal events.

Harry brought a judicial review lawsuit in an effort to force government staff, the police and senior palace aides to retake the decision in the hope they would change their minds.

A press summary of Peter Lane’s judgement 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.”

A legal representative for Harry said, in January 2022, when the case first became public: “While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

“The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in,” the statement added. “With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk.”

“The goal for Prince Harry has been simple—to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country,” the statement added.

A past Home Office court filing, seen by Newsweek, read: “In considering whether to provide Protective Security to any such individual, RAVEC considers the risk of a successful attack on that individual.

“In summary, RAVEC considers the threat that an individual faces, which is assessed by reference to the capability and intent of hostile actors, the vulnerability of that individual to such an attack, and the impact that such an attack would have on the interests of the State.

“The Decision was not that [Harry] would under no circumstances be provided with Protective Security. Rather: (1) As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the Royal Family, and would be living abroad for the majority of the time, his position had materially changed.

“In those circumstances, Protective Security would not be provided on the same basis as before. (2) However, he would, in particular and specific circumstances, be provided Protective Security when in Great Britain.”

Jack Royston is Newsweek‘s chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek’s The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We’d love to hear from you.