Prince Harry lost his appeal Friday challenging the U.K. governmentโs decision to strip him of his publicly funded security after he stepped away from royal family duties and moved to the U.S.
The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that a committee hadnโt treated Harry unfairly when it decided to review his protection on a case-by-case basis each time he visits the U.K.
Justice Geoffrey Vos said in a 21-page judgement that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated and his lawyer had made powerful and moving arguments on his behalf. But he said that Harryโs grievance wasnโt legal grounds to challenge the decision to deny him regular security.
โFrom the Duke of Sussexโs point of view, something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the U.K.,โ Vos said. โBut that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.โ
The ruling is likely to leave the Duke of Sussex with a large bill to pay the U.K. governmentโs legal fees โ in addition to his own lawyersโ costs.
It wasnโt immediately clear if he would try to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
The ruling upheld a High Court judgeโs decision last year that found that a โbespokeโ plan for the Duke of Sussexโs security wasnโt unlawful, irrational or unjustified.
Harry made a rare appearance for the two-day hearing last month as his lawyer argued that his life was in danger and the Royal and VIP Executive Committee had singled him out for inferior treatment.
โThere is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect,โ lawyer Shaheed Fatima said. โHis presence here and throughout this appeal is a potent illustration โ were one needed โ of how much this appeal means to him and his family.โ
A lawyer for the government said that Harryโs argument repeated his misconceived approach that failed in the lower court.
โIt involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgement, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture,โ lawyer James Eadie said.
Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, had stepped back from their official roles in the family in 2020, because they didnโt feel they were โbeing protected by the institution,โ his lawyer said.
After doing so, a Home Office committee ruled there was โno basis for publicly funded security support for the duke and duchess within Great Britain.โ
Harry claimed that he and his family are endangered when visiting his homeland because of hostility aimed at him and Meghan on social media and through relentless hounding by news media.
Since he lost his government-sponsored protection, Harry faced at least two serious security threats, his lawyer said in court papers. Al-Qaeda had published a document that said Harryโs assassination would please Muslims, and he and his wife were involved in a pursuit by paparazzi in New York.
Harry, 40, the younger son of King Charles III, has bucked royal family convention by taking the government and tabloid press to court, where he has a mixed record.
He lost a related court case in which he sought permission to privately pay for a police detail when in the U.K. A judge denied that offer after a government lawyer argued officers shouldnโt be used as โprivate bodyguards for the wealthy.โ
But he won a significant victory at trial against the publisher of the Daily Mirror when a judge found that phone hacking at the tabloid was โwidespread and habitual.โ He claimed a โmonumentalโ victory in January when Rupert Murdochโs U.K. tabloids made an unprecedented apology for intruding in his life for years, and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle his privacy invasion lawsuit.
He has a similar case pending against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
© 2025 The Canadian Press
About The Author
