Prince Harry lost his appeal against security protection in the UK – country
Prince Harry lost his appeal on Friday, challenging the British government's decision to withdraw from royal duties and move to the United States, and decided to deprive his publicly funded security department.
The Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that the Commission did not unfairly treat his protection when it decided to review its protection case by case every time it visited the UK.
Judge Geoffrey Vos said in a 21-page judgment that the Duke of Sussex was treated well and that his lawyers made a strong and moving debate on his behalf. But he said Harry’s complaint was not a legal reason to challenge his decision to deny his regular safe.
“From the Duke of Sussex’s perspective, there was something wrong, and it was an unexpected consequence of his decision to take a step back, and for most of his time abroad he had gained a much more customized, usually less level of protection than he did when he was in England,” Vos said. “But that itself did not cause legal complaints.”
The ruling could cause the Duke of Sussex to pay large bills to cover legal fees for the UK government, in addition to his own lawyer fees.
It is not clear whether he will attempt to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
Get the daily national news
Get news, politics, economics and current events titles delivered to your inbox every day.
The ruling upheld last year’s High Court judge’s ruling that found that the Duke of Sussex’s “customized” plan for security was not illegal, irrational or unreasonable.
Harry rarely appeared at a two-day hearing last month as his lawyer argued his life was at risk and the Royal and VIP executive committee picked him out of inferior treatment.
“There is a man sitting behind me who was told that when he knew and went through a process that was obviously inferior in every way, he was getting a special customization process,” said attorney Shaheed Fatima. “His presence here and throughout the appeal is a powerful illustration – a powerful illustration of how much it means to him and his family.”
A government lawyer said Harry's argument repeated his approach to false performances of failure in the lower court.
“This involves constantly unable to see the wood of trees, advancing the proposition by reading only a small part of the evidence, and now judgments, deviating from the context, ignore the whole picture.”
Harry and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, quit their official role in the family in 2020 because they did not feel “protected by institutions.”
After doing so, the Home Office Committee ruled that “there is no publicly funded security support from the Duke and Duchess of Great Britain.”
Harry claims he and his family were threatened while visiting their homeland due to hostile hostility on social media and in the news media.
Harry faces at least two serious security threats due to the loss of government-sponsored protection. Al-Qaeda published a document saying Harry's assassination would please Muslims, and he and his wife were involved in the New York paparazzi pursuit.
Harry, 40, is the youngest son of King Charles III, brought the government and tabloid press to court, where he won the royal convention, where his record was mixed.
He lost a related court case in which he allowed in the UK, after the judge denied the proposal, government lawyers argued that it should not be used as a “private bodyguard for the rich”.
But when the judge found that the phone call in the tabloid was “wide and habitual”, he won a major victory in his trial of the publisher of the Daily Mirror. When Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid had violated years of infringement in his life and agreed to pay substantial compensation to resolve his privacy intrusion lawsuit, he achieved a “huge” victory in January.
He has similar cases for the publisher of the Daily Mail.
& Copy 2025 Canadian Press
