Prince Harry has suffered a significant legal setback after the U.K. Court of Appeal ruled against his challenge to reinstate publicly funded police protection during visits to the United Kingdom.
The decision, announced on May 2, 2025, upholds a previous High Court ruling that deemed the government's decision to downgrade his security arrangements as lawful and reasonable.
The case centers on a February 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), which determined that Harry, no longer a working royal and residing in the United States, would not receive the same level of taxpayer-funded security as other senior members of the royal family.
Instead, a "bespoke" security arrangement was established, requiring Harry to provide 30 days' notice before visiting the U.K., with security evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Harry's legal team argued that this arrangement was insufficient and endangered his family's safety, citing specific threats, including an Al-Qaeda publication and a paparazzi chase in New York City.
However, the Court of Appeal judges, including Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, upheld the government's approach, stating that the security measures were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair.
The ruling has significant implications for Harry's future visits to the U.K., as it reinforces the government's stance on security arrangements for individuals who have stepped back from royal duties.
While Harry has the option to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court, it remains to be seen whether he will pursue this route.
The decision, announced on May 2, 2025, upholds a previous High Court ruling that deemed the government's decision to downgrade his security arrangements as lawful and reasonable.
The case centers on a February 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), which determined that Harry, no longer a working royal and residing in the United States, would not receive the same level of taxpayer-funded security as other senior members of the royal family.
 |
| Credit: Sussexroyal/Instagram |
Instead, a "bespoke" security arrangement was established, requiring Harry to provide 30 days' notice before visiting the U.K., with security evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Harry's legal team argued that this arrangement was insufficient and endangered his family's safety, citing specific threats, including an Al-Qaeda publication and a paparazzi chase in New York City.
However, the Court of Appeal judges, including Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, upheld the government's approach, stating that the security measures were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair.
The ruling has significant implications for Harry's future visits to the U.K., as it reinforces the government's stance on security arrangements for individuals who have stepped back from royal duties.
While Harry has the option to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court, it remains to be seen whether he will pursue this route.
You can share this post!