Prince Harry back in UK for taxpayer-funded security court case

Telegraph

08-04-2025

The Duke of Sussex has returned to the UK to attend a High Court appeal over his right to taxpayer-funded security.
Prince Harry arrived in London before a two-day hearing that is a last roll of the dice in his effort to win police protection for himself and his family whenever they return to the UK.
By making the 10,000-mile return trip from California to attend Court 73, he hopes to demonstrate quite how critical he considers the outcome of the case.
The Duke has made clear that without guaranteed, state-backed security he feels unable to bring his wife or his children back to the UK.
The lengthy legal row is a key factor in the rift with his father: the Duke has made it clear he believes the King could intervene to help broker a suitable arrangement.
Buckingham Palace sources have insisted that this is incorrect.
The King is said to be so worried about being dragged into the case that he has hesitated to engage with his younger son, in case his words are repeated in public, placing him in legal jeopardy.
The Duke was most recently in the UK in September, when he attended the WellChild Awards.
His appearance in court follows a particularly turbulent fortnight. He resigned from Sentebale, his African charity, which was plunged into crisis by a bitter war of words with Sophie Chandauka, its chairman.
Amid the chaos, Meghan has ploughed on with the launch of her business, As Ever, and a new podcast, Confessions of a Female Founder, which is due to be released on Tuesday.
The Duke is understood to have landed in London hours before the King and Queen flew to Italy for a four-day state visit. The Prince and Princess of Wales, meanwhile, are enjoying a four-week Easter break with their children.
The appeal will be heard on Tuesday and Wednesday by Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis.
It will take place partly in private after the judges ruled that some 'highly confidential' evidence relating to 'security arrangements and threat levels and assessments for [the Duke] and other public figures' would be heard.
They added: 'It is obvious that such material would be of interest to anyone wishing to harm a person.'
It is more than a year since the Duke 'comprehensively lost' a legal battle with the Home Office following two and a half years of legal wrangling.
Mr Justice Lane ruled in February 2024 that a decision made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) had not been irrational or procedurally unfair.
The Duke was granted leave to challenge the judgement 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.
The court found that Mr Justice Lane might have erred in concluding the Duke was not in a comparable position to those in an 'other VIPs category' who receive state security.
The Duke's legal team asked the court to expedite the case last year, owing to fears of an increased risk to the Duke, including threats against him made by al-Qaeda, but the request was denied.
In an interview with ITV's Tabloids on Trial last July, the Duke said: 'It's still dangerous, and all it takes is one lone actor, one person who reads this stuff to act on what they have read and whether it's a knife or acid, whatever it is, and these are things that are of genuine concern for me… It's one of the reasons why I won't bring my wife back to this country.'
Security has long been a line in the sand, with the Duke fearing that history will repeat 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 and their young son, Archie.
But Ravec swiftly declared that the Duke and his family were no longer entitled to the 'same degree' of personal security when visiting Britain.
Instead, they are required to give 30-day notice of any travel plans so each visit can 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 Sir Mark Sedwill, Cabinet secretary at the time, the Duke 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 own security but was told the Metropolitan Police 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.
The Duke argued that he had been denied a 'clear and full explanation' of the composition of the committee, which includes senior members of the Royal household, and how it operates.
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'.
Shaheed Fatima KC, the Duke's lawyer, 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 mother had done, with 'additional layers of racism and extremism', she told the court.
While the Sussexes have their own privately-funded security team, they do not believe it can replicate the necessary police close protection when they are in the UK.
Sources close to the Duke have argued that he inherited a security risk at birth and that the threat to his safety has not dissipated, even if his role within the institution has changed.
Others who have left public office yet have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them, it is claimed.
The Duke is understood to believe that the decision to allow Taylor Swift, the American singer, a police escort to her Wembley Stadium shows last August over terror fears proved that exemptions could be made.