Prince Harry has officially lost his legal battle to restore full UK police protection, following a ruling by the Court of Appeal that upheld the UK government’s decision to downgrade his security arrangements. The verdict marks a significant setback for the Duke of Sussex, who has consistently voiced concerns over the safety of his family during visits to Britain.
The judgment, delivered on Friday by Judge Geoffrey Vos in London, concluded that while Prince Harry may feel aggrieved by the outcome of his royal transition, such sentiment does not equate to a legal wrong. “An unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and live abroad is the downgrade in his security. However, this does not in itself give rise to a legal complaint,” Vos stated.
The legal dispute stems from a 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), which determined that Harry would no longer receive the same level of state-funded security as senior working royals. The ruling came after he and his wife, Meghan Markle, stepped down from their official duties and relocated to California.
Since then, Prince Harry has made repeated legal attempts to challenge what he considers “unjustified and inferior treatment.” His legal team argued that RAVEC failed to adequately consider the risks he faces, citing past threats, his military background, and a widely reported 2023 paparazzi car chase in New York City.
During the recent appeal hearing, his lawyer Shaheed Fatima highlighted the real dangers the prince faces, mentioning threats from extremist groups like al-Qaeda. She emphasized that Prince Harry’s life could be at risk due to inadequate security, arguing the government did not fully evaluate these concerns.
Prince Harry, who served as a British Army captain in Afghanistan, has frequently referenced the death of his mother, Princess Diana, as a cautionary tale. Diana died in a car crash in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi — a tragedy that continues to inform Harry’s approach to media and security.
Despite his impassioned arguments, the Court of Appeal supported the government’s stance. Government lawyers maintained that the revised security plan was “bespoke,” reflecting Harry’s new circumstances as a non-working royal who spends most of his time abroad.
Prince Harry had previously told the High Court that he could not bring his children — Archie and Lilibet — to the UK due to the lack of sufficient protection. “The UK is my home. It’s central to my children’s heritage. That cannot happen if it’s not safe,” he said.
The strained relationship between Harry and the royal family has also been a consistent backdrop to this legal episode. Reports indicate minimal communication between him and his brother, Prince William, as well as limited contact with King Charles III, who is currently undergoing cancer treatment.
Meanwhile, Meghan Markle has been increasing her public engagements in the United States, launching media ventures including a podcast, a Netflix docuseries, and a return to social media platforms.
With this legal route now closed, Prince Harry’s options appear limited. While the prince has not ruled out future legal actions, Friday’s ruling solidifies the UK government’s position that his security status must reflect his diminished public role.
The case adds another chapter to Prince Harry’s post-royal life, marked by a desire to maintain his family’s safety while navigating a complex relationship with the monarchy and the British public.