Closing summary
The Duke of Sussex lost a court of appeal challenge over his security arrangements while in the UK, allowing the UK government to proceed with a “bespoke”, and cheaper, level of protection to his family.
Prince Harry’s taxpayer-funded protection was downgraded in 2020, after he stopped being a working royal and moved abroad with his family.
He appealed the government’s decision, with his legal team arguing that the British Home Office had “singled” him out for “inferior treatment”. But on Friday, three judges at the court of appeal rejected this argument.
“I could not say that the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec’s decision,” Judge Geoffrey Vos said in his ruling.
Vos acknowledged that arguments from Harry’s barrister were “powerful and moving”, and that it was “plain that the duke felt badly treated by the system”.
Thanks for following along. We are closing this blog now. But you can read more about the court of appeal’s ruling and its implications here.
Risk management would have 'nothing to say' on 'critical features' of Harry's new security situation - judge
Harry’s legal team had argued in previous hearings that Ravec was at fault for failing to get an assessment from an “expert specialist body”, called the risk management board. It came up with a “bespoke process” for him, which he believed had singled him out for “different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
In his ruling at the court of appeal on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos said:
Even if there had been a risk analysis from the risk management board, it would very likely have only confirmed the threat, vulnerability and impact levels which the Duke of Sussex had faced when earlier risk analyses were undertaken.
But it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation, namely the need for protective security on future uncertain visits and the government’s appetite for risk.
Updated
