Prince Harry Loses His First Lawsuit in Blow to Security

Prince Harry's legal battle for permission to pay for his own police protection in the U.K. has ended in his first court defeat.

The Duke of Sussex sued the U.K. Home Office over a ruling that private individuals who have been denied Metropolitan Police bodyguards should not be allowed to pay to have them reinstated.

Harry was stripped of his taxpayer-funded security detail when he quit as a working royal in 2020 and has been campaigning to get it reinstated.

The ruling at the High Court in London on May 23 came days after Prince Harry and Meghan said they were involved in a "near catastrophic" car chase with paparazzi in New York, though the NYPD sought to tone down their description.

It is not, however, the end of Harry's fight over his police protection as this was the second of two "judicial review" lawsuits against the British government and the first remains ongoing.

Harry's lawyers argue that legislation allows police to charge for certain services, including for example at sporting events, and so he too should be able to pay for police security to protect public funds.

Among his reasons for rejecting the claim, Judge Martin Chamberlain wrote in his judgement that a Home Office committee, RAVEC, that made the ruling was entitled to argue officers should not be put in harm's way in exchange for payment.

He wrote: "Those services are different in kind from the police services provided at (for example) sporting or entertainment events, because they involve the deployment of highly trained specialist officers, of whom there are a limited number, and who are required to put themselves in harm's way to protect their principals.

"RAVEC's reasoning was that there are policy reasons why those services should not be made available for payment, even though others are. I can detect nothing that is arguably irrational in that reasoning."

"For these reasons," he continued. "I refuse permission to apply for judicial review."

Having lost this case, Harry faces the prospect of paying Home Office costs, though these currently appear to be a fairly moderate £8,042.20, around $10,000.

Home Office lawyers argued he already benefits from exceptional status as they offer him police protection for official royal events on a case-by-case basis.

He was protected for Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee and King Charles III's coronation, for example, but only while attending official events.

As a result, Harry, Meghan and their children only attended the Platinum Jubilee events they were entitled to and otherwise did not leave their Frogmore Cottage home in June 2022.

Harry first asked for permission to pay privately to keep his police protection detail during a meeting, known as the Sandringham Summit, with his family to thrash out the terms of his royal exit in January 2020.

The prince argues that without police protection it is not safe for him to return to the U.K. with wife Meghan Markle and children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

A statement announcing his first lawsuit on the subject in January 2022 read: "Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life.

"He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

"While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.

"The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham. That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer."

Some elements of Prince Harry's first judicial review over his police protection were rejected in July 2022 but others were waved through to a full hearing.

He will still need to prove his case if he is to force the U.K. government to re-take its decision on his police protection arrangements.

A Metropolitan Police court filing read: "It is wrong for a policing body to place officers in harm's way upon payment of a fee by a private individual.

"It would be unjust to allow a wealthy principal [individual receiving protection] to pay for protective security when this would be denied a principal who did not benefit from such resources.

"To devote protection officers to principals who pay for them would divert such resources from those RAVEC has deemed to warrant protective security.

"To allow an individual to pay for protective security would create a precedent in which other wealthy individuals could argue that they too should be permitted to pay for such services."

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Update 5/23/23 6:45 a.m. EDT: This article was updated with more information and context.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.