Prince Harry’s Court Case Over Security in the UK, Explained

On Tuesday, England’s Court of Appeal will begin two days of hearings on Prince Harry’s legal case over the withdrawal of publicly financed security for his family during their visits to the U.K.

After Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, announced they were stepping down from their royal roles and leaving Britain in 2020, an official committee decided that the couple would no longer be eligible for the police protection normally given to royal family members.

Harry is challenging that decision. He lost a previous stage of the case in February last year, but a judge later granted him permission to appeal the ruling on limited grounds. The judge said that he was persuaded, although “not without hesitation,” that an appeal had a “real prospect of success.”

Three judges at London’s Court of Appeal will hear arguments by Harry’s lawyers that the decision to withdraw protection violated official policy. Part of the case will be conducted in private because of the sensitive nature of evidence around security processes and risk assessments, the court ruled.

What is the case about?

The case concerns a Feb. 28, 2020, decision that Harry and Meghan would no longer qualify for publicly financed security protection in the U.K., after they withdrew from their official roles and started a new life in Canada. In March 2020, they moved from Vancouver to California.

The decision was made by a body called the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, which brings together government officials, the police and members of the royal household. Ravec is responsible for making security arrangements for the royal family and other U.K.-based figures who are at particular risk from terrorism, obsessive behavior or other threats.

During the first stage of Harry’s case, heard at the High Court in London in 2022, his lawyers said that he had not known that the committee existed and had no opportunity to weigh in on its decision. After being told that discussions were taking place over his security provision, he wrote a letter to a government official expressing disbelief and concern. The letter, dated Feb. 10, 2020, mentioned his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a 1997 car crash while she was being pursued by paparazzi in Paris.

Harry argued that his family was at even greater risk because of “additional layers of racism and extremism,” and that security from the Metropolitan Police in London was essential. He wrote that he believed the lack of consultation could be “some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first” — an accusation the British government has denied.

What has happened in the case so far?

Harry launched his legal challenge in September 2021, arguing that Ravec had violated its own policy by withdrawing publicly funded protection, that the committee had failed to consider key factors, and that it had not followed a fair process and was insufficiently transparent.

In the first stage of the case, in July 2022, the court heard testimony that Harry offered to “reimburse or proactively finance the cost of the security measures” himself, but Ravec decided that would be wrong “in principle.” The Home Office told the court that the committee decided it was not appropriate for wealthy people to “buy” protective security such as armed police from the government, when it had already decided that the protection was not warranted on a publicly funded basis.

Ravec was said to be concerned that permitting private funding would “reduce the availability” of a limited pool of close protection officers in Britain, where police are not routinely armed and undergo intensive specialist training for the role.

Harry lost a specific legal challenge on the funding decision in 2023, and a High Court judge dismissed his case on wider grounds in February 2024.

He was granted permission to appeal three months later, but only on legal points concerning whether Ravec had violated its own policy.

While the case has been continuing, Harry has visited the U.K. on several occasions, including for the funeral of his grandmother Queen Elizabeth II, and for the coronation of his father King Charles III, and has paid for private security.

The High Court heard testimony that Harry’s representatives had applied to Ravec for public security protections for each visit.

When will we know the verdict?

After the two-day hearing concludes on Wednesday, the Court of Appeal judges may announce their ruling on the same day or “reserve judgment,” meaning that they will privately deliberate for weeks or months before announcing their decision.

Whichever side loses the case can apply for permission to mount an appeal at the U.K.’s Supreme Court. Permission is not automatically granted, because judges must decide whether there is any prospect that it would be successful.

Britain’s Home Office said it could not comment directly on the court case but said in a statement: “The U.K. government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our longstanding policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”