The Duke of Sussex has been granted permission to appeal against the dismissal of his high court challenge over a change to his level of personal security when he visits the UK.
Prince Harry took legal action against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.
The retired high court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the duke’s case in February 2024 and concluded Ravec’s approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair. Harry then lost an initial attempt to appeal but was able to ask the court of appeal directly for permission to challenge Lane’s decision.
He has now been given the green light to challenge at the court of appeal, according to an order by Lord Justice Bean dated 23 May.
In his 52-page partly redacted ruling dismissing the duke’s claims in February, Lane said Harry’s lawyers had taken an “inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”, adding: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of February 28, 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”
The judge said he accepted comments from Sir Richard Mottram, the former chair of Ravec, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry’s legal arguments in February 2020, he “would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons”.
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.
After the February ruling a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.
“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis. The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.
“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the court of appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”
