Prince Harry loses final bid for taxpayer-funded UK protection and security

Get the Full StoryPrince Harry s long legal fight to get back his taxpayer-funded security protection in the UK has ended in a clear loss. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal against the government s choice to take away his publicly paid security, closing a legal battle that lasted several years. The court s decision agreed with an earlier High Court ruling from February 2024, confirming that the special security plan made for the Duke of Sussex was legal. Harry s security was first removed in February 2020 after he and Meghan Markle decided to step down from their royal duties and move to the United States. According to PBS, The Royal and VIP Executive Committee RAVEC , which handles security for important people, decided that public money should no longer pay for his protection because his situation had changed. As reported by NY Times, this led Prince Harry to take legal action, claiming that losing his security put him and his family at serious risk. Harry s lawyers argued that the special security arrangement, which only provided protection during certain visits to the UK, was unfair and inadequate and left his family in danger. Prince Harry can t hire a security team Prince Harry s team pointed to the threats Harry reportedly faced, including online hate and aggressive paparazzi, saying the security he was given was not enough to keep him safe. They also said that if Harry were attacked, it could harm the UK s reputation. In 2024, Harry tried to pay for his own security through the Metropolitan Police, but this was also denied, which he said proved he was being treated unfairly. His legal team insisted this was not just about personal preference but that the government had broken the rules on how royal security should be handled. The government, on the other hand, said RAVEC s decision was fair and necessary because Harry s role had changed. They argued that the special security plan was the right level of protection for his new situation. The government s lawyers explained that the decision was made because Harry chose to leave royal duties and live outside the UK, calling the security plan a reasonable solution for an unusual case. The Court of Appeal agreed with the government. While the judges understood Harry s worries and accepted that his safety concerns were real, they ruled that these concerns did not make RAVEC s decision legally wrong. The court decided that the special security plan was a lawful response to Harry s changed life. The judges acknowledged that Harry felt wronged but stressed that his personal feelings did not change the legal reasons behind the government s actions.

Share: