In a shocking outcome, Prince Harry has lost a major legal case over his security arrangements during future visits to the United Kingdom. Today, the Duke of Sussex is standing up to the publisher of the Daily Mail. He is accompanied by Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, to name just two high-profile challengers of allegations of unlawful information-gathering. This ruling by the Court of Appeal effectively crushed his appeal. This ruling relates to the coverage provided by the Executive Committee for the Exec. Committee for Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
The court’s decision marks another chapter in Prince Harry’s ongoing struggle for adequate security measures while visiting the UK. At the core of this is his argument that he is made to feel “overwhelmed” and “exhausted” by these litigations. The outcome of the case has generated a maelstrom of public interest, which is hardly surprising considering its effect on royal protection procedures.
Background of the Case
Prince Harry’s legal journey started when he filed a case to appeal a past ruling on his security arrangements. Yet, Ravec’s decision to provide him with personal protection was arbitrary and capricious. He found this case-by-case approach, rooted in the same cost-benefit analysis as before, to be equally unlawful. The Home Office doggedly insisted on its stance. Further, they claimed it was essential to tailor protections according to the details of his trips.
During a recent hearing, Lord Justice Vos noted that the court must respect the expertise of decision-makers in the realm of royal protection. He stated, “In this area of high political sensitivity, the court will inevitably have considerable respect for Sir Richard as a decision maker, whose expertise and experience in the field of Royal protection is probably unrivalled.” Such an acknowledgment highlights the cost benefit analysis, measuring security needs, crippling complexities that go into an assessment for someone like Prince Harry.
For his part, Prince Harry’s legal team argued that he had been “singled out”—subjected to a “less favourable” treatment than others. They contended that the government’s decision-making was negligent in deciding whether or not to protect him. Nonetheless, the court found that the rationale supporting Ravec’s decisions was not arbitrary or capricious.
Emotional Appeal
In December 2023, Prince Harry made an emotional statement to the court. He made clear just how important this call is to his family. He expressed a desire for his children to feel at home in their ancestral country, stating, “The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US.” He further remarked, “That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil.”
This moving testimony outlines just what’s at stake for him. It raises urgent concerns about the safety of public figures and their family members. His children, Archie and Lilibet, last visited the UK in June 2022 during significant family events. As these legal challenges continue, it is important to consider how security measures infringe on individual’s rights to connect with their heritage.
Legal Developments
After a long court fight, the Prince Harry’s claim was finally rejected Friday by the Court of Appeal. The ruling concluded that decisions regarding his security would be made based on individual circumstances surrounding each visit to the UK.
Sir Geoffrey Vos elaborated on this decision, stating, “The Duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.” He further described that outside the UK, Prince Harry’s need for security would be different than inside its borders. This case has raised poignant questions not only about royal protection protocols but how they adjust to changing times and situations.
Earlier this year Prince Harry settled with NGN. This settlement ended the illegal practice of information collection by private detectives. The signed settlement included an unusual public apology and millions in damages from the university. Though this was a huge victory on an unrelated issue, it did little to mitigate Marc’s fears for his own safety.
