High Court decision mandates Prince Harry to bear substantial legal costs, impacting his future visits to the UK
In a recent ruling that could have far-reaching implications for his future visits to the UK, Prince Harry has been dealt a blow by a High Court judge concerning his personal security arrangements. The Duke of Sussex’s legal struggle with the Home Office concluded unfavourably when the court decreed that he must pay 90 per cent of the legal costs incurred by the Home Office. This ruling follows his unsuccessful bid to appeal a decision made in February 2020, which stripped him of the “same degree” of publicly funded security he previously enjoyed.
Prince Harry, who relocated to the US after stepping down from royal duties, challenged the decision on the grounds that it unfairly singled him out and compromised the safety of his family. His legal team argued that the Home Office’s failure to conduct a thorough risk analysis, or to consider the potential impact of an attack on him, rendered their decision both “unlawful and unfair”. Despite these arguments, Sir Peter Lane, a retired High Court judge, ruled against Harry, stating that the actions of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) were neither “irrational” nor “procedurally unfair”.
The financial repercussions for Prince Harry are significant, with the court ordering a 10 per cent reduction in the Home Office’s legal costs due to certain “breaches” during the legal process. These breaches, however, were not deemed sufficient to merit a more substantial reduction in costs, as argued by Harry’s legal team. They had sought a reduction of at least 50 per cent, citing these errors as materially impactful to the case’s outcome.
The implications of this decision extend beyond the courtroom. Ravec, which operates under the Home Office with cooperation from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office, and the royal household, is tasked with determining the security measures appropriate for members of the royal family and others on a case-by-case basis. This ruling underscores the bespoke nature of security arrangements for individuals who are not active members of the royal family.
Prince Harry’s loss in court does not preclude him from seeking further redress. He retains the option to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal, an avenue he may pursue in hopes of overturning Sir Peter’s decision. This ongoing legal battle underscores the complex and often contentious issues surrounding the provision of security to high-profile individuals who have stepped back from their public duties.
As Prince Harry and his wife Meghan continue their lives in the US, the protection they receive differs markedly from that afforded to working royals. This case has highlighted the delicate balance between personal safety and public funding, a topic that remains a point of contention both within the UK and internationally
