The Duke of Sussex has lost his appeal against the Government over his security.
Prince Harry argued that he was singled out for “unjustified and inferior treatment” when he was denied the right to automatic police protection in the UK.
He flew to London last month to attend a two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal, during which his barrister argued that the Home Office committee responsible for VIP security arrangements had failed to adhere to its own policies.
The ruling, handed down by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis on Friday afternoon, will come as a huge blow to the Duke, who is adamant that without state-backed security, it is too dangerous to bring his wife or children back to the UK.
Sir Geoffrey told the court that the Duke had put forward “powerful and moving arguments” and that it was plain he “felt badly treated by the system”.
However, he added: “I concluded, having studied the detail of the extensive documentation, I could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec’s decision.
“Accordingly, the Duke of Sussex’s appeal is dismissed.”
The appeal was widely considered his last roll of the dice, bringing to an end a three-and-a-half-year legal battle that the Duke admitted was even more significant than his legal crusade against the tabloid press. “This one always mattered the most,” he told The Telegraph in April.
The Duke said he believed his police protection was withdrawn to trap him and Meghan in the UK, adding that his “worst fears” had been confirmed by the secret evidence heard in court behind closed doors.
He remains convinced that the decision was imposed upon him “as some form of punishment”.
It is not yet known whether he will now apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Duke arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice on April 8 – Max Mumby/Indigo
The ruling raises the prospect that the Duke’s children, Prince Archie, five, and Princess Lilibet, three, may never again be brought back to the UK to see British relatives, including the King.
The Sussexes had flown back with their children for the Platinum Jubilee in June 2022, the only time Lilibet, who was born in California, has met the King.
In a witness statement filed to the High Court, the Duke said he did not believe his children could “feel at home” in the UK if it was “not possible to keep them safe”.
“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US,” he said. “That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil.
“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too.”
Security has long been a red line for the Duke, who fears history repeating itself following the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, in a Paris car crash.
When he and Meghan first announced their plans to quit royal duties, they insisted that “effective security” would still be needed to protect them.
But the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) swiftly concluded that a “flexible and tailored approach” was best suited to the Duke’s new circumstances.
Their plan to live abroad as private citizens did not “fit readily” into any category in its framework, meaning that automatic Metropolitan Police protection was no longer appropriate and would be withdrawn.
Instead, the couple were required to give 30-days notice of any travel plans so each visit could be assessed on its merits.
When the Duke was told of the decision in early 2020, he was furious, demanding to be given the names of those responsible.
In an email sent to the then-Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, he expressed “disbelief”, insisting that he be told who had put him in a position of such vulnerability and risk.
He offered to pay for his security but was told the Met was not for hire.
The Duke applied for a judicial review in September 2021, shortly after a visit to the UK when he felt his security was compromised.
The challenge was based on an alleged lack of transparency about Ravec’s composition and processes. He also claimed he had been “singled out” and treated “less favourably” than others by Ravec, which had subjected him to “unlawful and unfair treatment”.
His lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, said the committee 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”.
The Duke believed he faced a greater risk than his late mother, with “additional layers of racism and extremism”, she told the court.
Last February, the Duke “comprehensively lost” the case when Mr Justice Lane ruled that Ravec’s decision had not been irrational or procedurally unfair.
The Duke was granted leave to challenge the judgment in June, when the Court of Appeal concluded that there was a “real prospect of success” in his argument that Ravec had not followed its own written policy.
It found that Mr Justice Lane may have erred in concluding the Duke was not in a comparable position to those in an “Other VIP Category” who receive state security.
‘Swords down’
The three-judge appeal court panel heard last month that Ravec did not apply its normal terms of reference to the Duke nor carry out its usual individual risk assessment.
The loss means the Duke will continue to rarely return to the UK on behalf of his charities.
The ruling is unlikely to relieve tensions between the Duke and his father, the King.
Prince Harry had made it clear that he believed the monarch had the power to reinstate his police protection, with one friend previously saying that if the matter was resolved, it would be “swords down”. Sir Clive Alderton, the King’s private secretary, is a member of Ravec.
Buckingham Palace strongly refuted the Duke’s claims, with sources insisting it would be “wholly inappropriate” for the monarch to intervene.
The Duke’s only outstanding legal case is his joint claim against Associated Newspapers, scheduled to go to trial in January 2026.
The Duke, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, and Sir Elton John are among seven high-profile claimants suing the newspaper group over the alleged misuse of private information.
Meanwhile, the Duchess of Sussex is ploughing on with her nascent business, As Ever, while promoting her clothes and cookware online.
Associated Newspapers denies the claims.