Prince Harry has lost a High Court challenge to the government over the level of security in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex has failed to overturn an earlier ruling that saw his security reduced after he stopped working for the royal family.
The High Court ruled that the decision was neither illegal nor unreasonable.
Prince Harry plans to appeal the verdict, and a legal representative said: “We hope to get justice.''
His lawyers had argued that the decision was unfair, but the High Court's ruling said otherwise.
Prince Harry has launched a legal challenge after being told he will no longer have the same level of publicly funded protection while in the country.
The Home Office said that, like other high-profile visiting dignitaries, his security on his visit to the UK would be arranged according to the perceived risks, and on Wednesday said it was “satisfied” with the court's decision. .
Lawyers for the Home Office previously told the High Court against the duke's challenge that Prince Harry would continue to have publicly-funded police security, but that it would be different from the automatic security provided to him if he worked full-time. Instead, it would be “bespoke arrangements specifically tailored to him,” he said. Royalty.
Many of the legal proceedings covering the security of VIPs were held behind closed doors in December, and the judgment by former High Court judge Sir Peter Lane was announced on Wednesday morning.
The duke has previously claimed that declining security levels are making it difficult for him to bring his family over, which could affect his ability to visit the UK in the future.
In his judgment, Sir Peter rejected the duke's appeal, saying there was nothing illegal about Prince Harry's decision to downgrade security and that the deviation from policy was justified.
It found that this decision was neither unreasonable nor procedurally unfair.
In a 51-page, partially redacted document, Sir Peter explains how Prince Harry's lawyers are working under the Royal Family and VIP Executive Committee (Labèque), which arranges security for royals and VIPs. He said that he had given an “inappropriate interpretation” as to whether the facility had been secured. Other VIPs too. Responsibility has been delegated to the Ministry of Home Affairs, with the Metropolitan Police Department, the Cabinet Office and the Royal Family also involved.
The judgment also found that the “bespoke” process that Mr Labeque devised for Prince Harry was “legally sound and remains lawful”.
Elaborating further on Prince Harry's position, Sir Peter said in his judgment that Prince Harry “believes that because of his position within the Royal Family and factors relating to his past and past, he should be protected by the state whenever he is in the UK.” ”. current situation. Labèque did not share this view. ”
He further added that in January 2020, the Cabinet Secretary told Prince Harry's private secretary that “applicants should not expect existing security arrangements to remain unchanged”, and this was echoed in a separate statement later that month. He said the same was held “repeatedly” at the meeting.
The judgment also highlighted examples of the prince's safety concerns and highlighted evidence presented during the proceedings.
According to the paper, in February 2020 the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's private secretary wrote to then-minister Sir Mark Sedwill, in which the duke said: “I don't see how we could lift security in the absence of current risks.'' ” was written on it. His family has shrunk. ”
“Who would put themselves and their family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk? No one would have put my mother in that position 23 years ago,” the prince said, according to the paper. Today, we are in a situation with even greater risks.” As mentioned above, there are more layers of racism and extremism, so there are people who are willing to take responsibility for what might happen. Please tell me the name of the person responsible for this choice. ”
Last year, Prince Harry lost another legal case seeking permission to privately pay for police protection during his visit to the UK, which also focused on concerns about the decline in public safety as a result of the royal family no longer working full-time. became.
In his judgment, Sir Peter said that the Duke's offer to pay for his safety would be rejected “on the basis that the person is either entitled to the relevant protection as a member of the Labecque group or is not”. I decided that it would be done.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex retired from royal duties in 2020
A spokesperson for Prince Harry said he intended to appeal Wednesday's ruling.
“The Duke is not seeking preferential treatment, but rather the fair and lawful application of Labecque's own rules, to ensure that he receives the same consideration as others in line with Labecque's own written policies. “We are asking you to do so,” they said in a statement.
It added: “Labec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from certain risk analyses.”
However, Sir Peter's judgment said that undergoing a risk assessment was “not a right or a benefit; it is… an analytical tool”.
A spokesperson for Prince Harry insisted: “The so-called 'bespoke process' applied to Prince Harry is not a substitute for that risk analysis.”
It added: “The Duke of Sussex hopes to get justice at the Court of Appeal and will make no further comment while the case is ongoing.”
Prince Harry, who did not attend the hearing in December, lives in the United States with his wife, Duchess Meghan, and their two children.
The duke's recent visit to the UK was short-lived. Earlier this month, the 39-year-old spent just over 24 hours in the UK after traveling there for a 45-minute meeting with his father following King Charles' cancer diagnosis.
The last time Prince Harry attended a royal event was during the King's coronation in May.
It was also short-lived, with the duke leaving shortly after the ceremony at Westminster Abbey. However, a source told US media outlet Page Six at the time that Prince Harry intended to “make every effort” to arrive in time for his son Archie's birthday, which was on the same day.
Prince Harry's strained relationship with his family is also believed to have contributed to the short duration of his visit.
After the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has upheld the government's position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps.''
They added: “The UK Government's protective security systems are rigorous and appropriate.
“It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information about these arrangements because doing so could compromise their integrity and impact the safety of individuals.”
Prince Harry made no public appearances after the verdict, but appeared in a video for a charity he supports.
In a short on-camera message in response to his WellChild Award nomination, the duke praised the “extraordinary strength and spirit” of young people with complex medical conditions.
