Prince Harry to appeal police protection ruling

Prince Harry will seek to appeal a High Court ruling over his right to automatic police protection in the UK after his claim was dismissed by a judge.

The Duke of Sussex is preparing to take his case to the Court of Appeal after it was rejected by Sir Peter Lane in a written ruling on Tuesday.

Harry took legal action over the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of protection when in the country.

But Mr Justice Lane dismissed the Duke’s challenge and concluded that there was no unlawfulness by Ravec in reaching its decision.

Harry, who was not present at the December hearing, lives in North America with wife Meghan and their children after the couple announced they were stepping back as senior royals in January 2020.

At a hearing in London in December, the US-based duke’s lawyers said he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision by Ravec – a body that falls under the remit of the Home Office.

They said a failure to carry out the risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a “successful attack” on him meant the approach to his protection was “unlawful and unfair”.

The Government said Harry’s claim should be dismissed, arguing Ravec was entitled to conclude the Duke’s protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.

In his 52-page partially redacted ruling, Mr Justice Lane said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.

He added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”

The judge said he accepted comments from Sir Richard Mottram, the former chairman of Ravec, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry’s legal arguments in February 2020, “I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons”.

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the Royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.

Harry returned briefly to the UK on Feb 6 without his family after making a transatlantic dash to be with his father following the shock news of the King’s cancer diagnosis.

The Duke’s lawyers told the judge in December that Harry believes his children cannot “feel at home” in the UK if it is “not possible to keep them safe” there.

The majority of the proceedings were held in private, without the public or press present, because of confidential evidence over security measures for Harry and other public figures.

Mr Justice Lane said his ruling contained redactions because if such information was made public it would have “a serious adverse impact on the individuals concerned, as well as being contrary to the public interest, including that of national security”.

Home Office lawyers had argued that the Duke was no longer a member of the group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec, but he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”.

The court was told it was “simply incorrect” to suggest there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales was raised as part of the decision.

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesmn 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.”

03:07 PM GMTLive blog closing

We are ending our live coverage here.

Thank you for following our blog, the Telegraph website is the place for all the latest news and analysis.

02:00 PM GMTTelegraph readers on Prince Harry ruling01:52 PM GMTWatch: WellChild release Harry video

Away from the court ruling, the Duke of Sussex has appeared in a new video released by WellChild in which he has urged people to nominate inspiring individuals for the 2024 awards.

01:39 PM GMTRecap: Key points from Prince Harry ruling

Prince Harry has suffered a defeat in the High Court

Prince Harry has suffered a defeat in the High Court after his legal challenge was dismissed by a judge.

The Duke of Sussex brought a claim against the Home Office after Ravec – Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – made changes to his security arrangements in February 2020.

Mr Justice Lane’s 52-page ruling was released just after 11am.

Here are the main points as of Wednesday lunchtime.

Duke of Sussex’s legal challenge over his right to automatic police protection in the UK is dismissed by High Court

Mr Justice Lane rules Ravec showed no unlawfulness after telling Duke he would no longer receive “same degree” of protection in February 2020

Judge’s 52-page ruling sheds light on many of the discussions that went on between both sides behind the scenes

Duke’s lawyers found to have “inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of Ravec process

Prince Harry will seek to appeal ruling in the Court of Appeal

12:51 PM GMTPrince Harry to appeal ruling

Prince Harry will take his legal challenge to the Court of Appeal after it failed in the High Court.

A legal spokesman for the Duke of Sussex said:

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.

Although these are not labels used by Ravec, three categories – as revealed during the litigation – comprise the “Ravec cohort”: the Role Based Category, the Occasional Category and the Other VIP Category.

The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, 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.

12:34 PM GMTJudge – Duke’s criticism of Ravec approach was failure of engagement

Mr Justice Lane also said the Duke’s criticism of Ravec’s approach “fails to engage with the nature of Ravec’s decision-making”.

He said: “Ravec was not only entitled but obliged to approach matters on a case by case basis as regards certain cases, given their exceptional characteristics.

“Ravec was plainly under no obligation to adopt an explicitly comparative exercise of the kind for which the claimant contends and to draw from it only the conclusion that the claimant wished to see.”

The judge also appeared to criticise the Duke’s assertion that the Home Office committee had failed to consider the impact a “successful attack” on him might have.

He said: “The impact both at home and abroad of a successful attack on a particular individual lies at the heart of the rationale for Ravec’s existence.

“It would be bizarre if the highly-experienced chairman of Ravec, making a decision about the claimant, would not have had in mind the consequences of a successful attack.”

12:21 PM GMTDuke’s lawyer submitted police report of New York car chase

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed they were involved in a ‘near catastrophic car chase’ involving paparazzi photographers – MEGA/MEGA

The judgment reveals that on the last day of the hearing, the Duke’s barrister produced a copy of a letter dated Dec 6 2023 from the Chief of Intelligence in the New York City Police Department.

The letter was addressed to the Chief Superintendent OCU Commander Royalty and Speciality Protection and suggested that specific security measures were put in place following the couple’s “near catastrophic” car chase with paparazzi last May.

The Chief of Intelligence said he wanted to make the Chief Superintendent “aware of certain changes to the security posture that will be afforded to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in light of the security incident that took place on May 16 2023 in New York City”.

The letter revealed that “a thorough review” of the incident had taken place and although no formal charges were brought against anyone involved at the time “we did conclude that the behaviour in question was reckless.  As a result, [redacted text], beginning with an upcoming trip in the current weeks”.

The investigation found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question.

12:17 PM GMTPrince Harry’s High Court ruling – what does it reveal?

ph

The detailed 52-page ruling sheds light on many of the discussions that went on between both sides behind the scenes, Victoria Ward reports.

It reveals that a letter sent from the Duke’s private secretary to Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, expressed the Duke’s “disbelief that such important conversations were being had without any attempt by anyone to consult (him).”

The letter asked who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen.  I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please …”.

The judge said that the Duke believed a decision was being imposed upon him “without a sensible amount of consultation as some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first”.

He reveals that Harry suggested a six to 12-month review in order to establish sensible protection measures so that this new model was given a better chance of success.

He wanted “to see a full report of the current risk matrix please, and the justification that countries outside of the UK somehow change the international threat to us”.

12:02 PM GMTJudge – Duke’s interpretation of Ravec was ‘inappropriate’

The judge concluded that the “overarching problem” with the Duke’s case was his “inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.

He said: “The decision of 28 February 2020 was obviously forward-looking in nature.

“The suggestion that the claimant should have received both an RMB (risk) analysis and a ‘bespoke’ approach ignores the witness evidence of the defendant which, for the reasons I have given, falls to be given weight.

“That evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness, as regards the other VIP category.”

11:59 AM GMTJudge – ‘No merit’ to Duke’s concerns over UK travel notice

Sir Peter was also scathing about the Duke’s assertion that it was irrational to ask him to give 28 days’ notice of any travel to the UK.

“There is no merit in this contention,” he said.

“It arose from the need to be able to address a [redacted] of the kind belatedly given by the claimant to Ravec in relation to the June/July 2021 visit.

“Given Ravec’s expertise, the decision to require 28 days’ notice would need to be shown, by reference to evidence, to have been plucked out of the air or imposed for some extraneous reason, before this head of challenge could be made out. The claimant has pointed to nothing of the kind.”

11:50 AM GMTDuke critical of threat assessment before WellChild event

The judge agreed with the Home Office that Ravec was “well aware of the claimant’s status, background and profile”.

He said:  “The decision adopted a flexible approach precisely in order to recognise that [redacted] might warrant exceptions being made in future in relation to particular contexts.”

The Duke was particularly critical of the fact that Ravec did not commission a new threat assessment when he returned to the UK in June 2021 for a WellChild event.

However, the judge said: “Given, however, that the required 28 days’ notice was not given… I accept there would have been considerable time pressure on the production of such an assessment.

“In any event, Ravec was able to consider, before reconfirming its decision in relation to that visit, threat assessment information from the MPS Protection Command.

“Ravec correctly understood that it would be informed proactively of anything that had a material effect on the previous threat assessments that had been carried out.”

11:41 AM GMTJudge – Harry had ‘no right’ to new risk analysis

Sir Peter gave a damning response to the Duke’s claim that he was entitled to a full risk analysis by the Risk Management Board (RMB).

He said: “The claimant had no right to require Ravec to initiate a fresh RMB process in the light of his changed situation.

“In determining what fairness demands in this context, it is important to understand that undergoing an RMB assessment is not a right or even a benefit.

“It is, as Sir James Eadie KC (for the Home Office) submits, an analytical tool.”

As such, the judge said:  “I do not consider that there was any procedural unfairness, such as might vitiate the decision.”

11:39 AM GMTJudge – ‘No substance’ that Home Office failed to act fairly

Sir Peter said it was “highly relevant” that on Jan 11 2020, Sir Edward Young, Elizabeth II’s private secretary, provided Prince Harry with a “draft options paper” outlining that the “level of protection is a decision for the Home Secretary, delegated to the chair of (Ravec)”.

The paper explained the way the process worked and the various factors involved and was fully relayed to the Duke via his own private secretary, Fiona Mcilwham.

The judge said it was clear “that there is no substance in the contention that the defendant failed to act in a procedurally fair manner”.

He added: “In particular, there was no reason to assume that the claimant’s Private Secretary was unaware of the security issues arising as a result of the claimant’s [redacted text].

“On the contrary, the evidence shows that she was entirely conversant with them following the meeting on 27 January 2020, if not before. She would have been well aware of Ravec and its chair, who was at that meeting.

“If there had been the need for any questions to be asked about Ravec, Ms Mcilwham can be expected to have asked them.”

11:36 AM GMTJudge – Harry warned he would need private security

Judge Sir Peter Lane noted that Prince Harry believed he should receive state-funded protective security whenever he is in the UK because of his position within the Royal family and factors concerning his past and present situations.

He added: “Ravec did not share this view. The paper provided by the Royal Household in January 2020 warned the claimant that he would likely need private security.

“At the meeting in mid-January 2020, the Cabinet Secretary explained to the claimant’s Private Secretary that the claimant should have no expectation of his existing security arrangements remaining the same. This was reiterated at the meeting of 27 January 2020.”

11:24 AM GMTPictured: King leaves Clarence House

As Prince Harry’s unsuccessful legal challenge was published by a retired High Court judge, his father, the King, has been pictured leaving Clarence House.

The King leaves Clarence House – London News Pictures

11:21 AM GMTPrince Harry’s High Court ruling in full11:20 AM GMTHarry loses High Court challenge over UK security arrangements

The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal challenge against the Home Office over his right to automatic police protection in the UK after he was stripped of taxpayer-funded security.

Harry took legal action over the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of protection when in the country.

But the court rejected the Duke’s challenge and concluded that there was no unlawfulness by Ravec in reaching its decision.

The judge found that any departure from policy was justified and that the decision was not irrational or marred by procedural unfairness.

The High Court ruled that even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would be prevented from granting the Duke any relief.

We will continue to bring you details of why Prince Harry’s legal challenge against the Government was unsuccessful as well as reaction to the court ruling

11:15 AM GMTHome Office – We are pleased the court found in favour of the Government

The Home Office reacted after Prince Harry’s unsuccessful legal challenge.

A spokesman 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.

11:07 AM GMTRavec’s actions justified in 2020

The court concluded that there was no unlawfulness in reaching the decision of Feb 28 2020.

The judge found that any departure from policy was justified and that the decision was not irrational or marred by procedural unfairness.

The High Court ruled that even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would be prevented from granting the Duke any relief.

Leaving aside any such unlawfulness, this is because it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.

The court also found that there had been no unlawfulness on the part of Ravec in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to the UK, following its 2020 decision.

11:02 AM GMTPrince Harry loses legal challenge over UK security

The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal challenge against the Home Office over his right to automatic police protection in the UK

10:29 AM GMTRuling imminent

We are expecting Sir Peter Lane’s written ruling imminently.

10:15 AM GMTWho sits on Ravec?

Sir Clive Alderton, the King’s principal private secretary – Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images/Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images

The membership of Ravec, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, has traditionally been shrouded in secrecy, Victoria Ward reports.

But The Telegraph has previously revealed that Sir Clive Alderton, the King’s principal private secretary, is among the 10 people tasked with making decisions on the level of protective security afforded to members of the Royal family and public figures at particular risk.

Chris Fitzgerald, the King’s deputy private secretary, also sits on the committee as does a senior aide to Prince William.

Alongside the three senior members of the Royal household, sit the chairman of the National Police Chiefs Council counter-terrorism coordination committee, the deputy assistant commissioner specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, the director general of the Homeland Security Group at the Home office and the deputy director of the National Security Secretariat at the Cabinet Office.

The director of protocol at the Foreign Office and the head of royalty VIP and MP security unit at the Homeland Security Group are also on the committee.

10:09 AM GMTJudicial review awarded following transparency concerns

Prince Harry won the right to a judicial review based on an alleged lack of transparency about Ravec’s composition and processes.

He said he had been denied a “clear and full explanation” of the composition of the Home Office committee and how it operates.

The Duke was denied the right to bring a second challenge based on his offer to pay for his own protection, which he argued should have prompted the Home Office to “quash and retake” its decision.

10:03 AM GMTHarry denied right to protection in UK

Prince Harry arrives at Clarence House last month

The Duke said that each time he had visited the UK since June 2021, he had formally requested protective security in advance, giving the required 28-day notice, Victoria Ward reports.

However, the response on every occasion, which is largely redacted in court documents, was branded “wholly inadequate”.

The decision to deny him protection during his flying visit for his father’s Coronation last May was deemed “irrational”.

In response, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, insisted otherwise.

“Despite the fact that these matters have been explained to the claimant in correspondence and now in evidence, the claimant still fails to engage with the explanation given,” he said. “Ravec’s approach is unchallengeable.”

Sir James also chastised the Duke for comparing himself to other royals and VIPs who receive protective security, branding the argument “inappropriate”.

The Duke has made several high profile visits to the UK since embarking on this legal action.

On each occasion he has been denied the right to police protection, instead travelling with his own private security team from the US.

Most recently, he flew over to see his father, the King in the wake of his cancer diagnosis.

After a 30-minute meeting at Clarence House, the Duke left the royal residence without police outriders and spent the night in a London hotel.

09:55 AM GMTHarry’s legal cases

Prince Harry outside the High Court in March last year

The security case is one of three remaining live High Court cases brought by the Duke, alongside claims over allegations of unlawful information gathering against publishers News Group Newspapers (NGN) and Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

Earlier this month, Harry settled the remaining parts of his phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers.

It came after the Duke decided in January to withdraw a libel claim against ANL over a February 2022 Mail on Sunday article about his legal challenge against the Home Office.

09:52 AM GMTThe Government position

Prince Harry protected by security on a visit to Norfolk in 2008 – Getty Images

The Government said Harry’s claim should be dismissed, arguing that Ravec – which falls under the Home Office’s remit – was entitled to conclude the Duke’s protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.

Home Office lawyers said the Duke was no longer a member of the group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec, but he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”.

The court was told that it was “simply incorrect” to suggest that there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales was raised as part of the decision.

09:48 AM GMTHarry’s argument

Prince Harry has raised concerns about his family’s safety

Harry’s legal team told the judge he had been singled out and treated “less favourably” than others when he was denied the right to automatic police protection in the UK.

The Duke claimed the Home Office committee that withdrew his tax-payer funded security had subjected him to “unlawful and unfair treatment”.

His lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, said it had also failed to consider the potential “impact on the UK’s reputation” of a successful attack on the Duke, “bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the Royal family”.

It emerged that the Royal household raised the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in its own correspondence on the subject and that the committee was aware of the wider “impact” of any attack on her younger son as a result.

09:45 AM GMTThe background

Prince Harry

The Duke applied for a judicial review after the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) declared in February 2020 that he and his family were no longer entitled to the “same degree” of personal security when visiting Britain.

Instead, it created a “bespoke” approach that involves assessing each visit on its merits but has resulted in the Duke being denied police protection on each of his most recent six visits.

The Duke was given the green light to bring a legal challenge in July 2022 and his claim was heard over three days in December, largely in private.

Court documents, while heavily redacted, revealed that the Duke compared his own treatment to that of specific individuals whose names were withheld.

He said the “inconsistent approach” was demonstrated by the fact that a risk analysis was not carried out for him, as it was for others

09:43 AM GMTGood morning

The Telegraph will provide live updates on Prince Harry’s legal challenge against the UK Government over his security arrangements in the country.

The Duke will discover this morning whether he has won a claim lodged in the High Court over a decision to change his level of personal security.

Retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane is expected to hand down his ruling at 10.30am.

We will bring you all the latest news and reaction.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.