Prince Harry is appealing a major defeat in a high-stakes lawsuit over the British government's decision to strip him of his police security.
A judge ruled Wednesday that Home Office committee RAVEC had the legal right to rule Harry would lose his Metropolitan Police bodyguards when he quit the palace in 2020.
A legal spokesperson for Harry told Newsweek in a statement: "The Duke of Sussex will appeal today's judgment which refuses his judicial review claim against the decision-making body RAVEC, which includes the Home Office, the Royal Household and the Met Police."
"The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment," the representative continued, "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."
The Home Office argued that Harry was at points offered police security on an ad hoc basis depending on the circumstances of his trips to Britain, which placed him in a unique category for someone judged not to be eligible for round-the-clock protection.
Judge Peter Lane's ruling read: "The application for judicial review is refused."
A press summary of the 51-page judgment read: "The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020. Any departure from policy was justified.
"The decision was not irrational. The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness. Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant relief.
"This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government's position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further.
"The UK Government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals' security."
Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
Update 2/28/24, 9:19 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with more context and comment.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
Jack Royston is Newsweek's Chief Royal Correspondent based in London, U.K. He reports on the British royal family—including King Charles ... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
