Prince Harry wins bid to take Home Office to court over security but also suffers blow to his case

Prince Harry has won his bid to take Home Office to court over his security in the UK but also suffered a blow to his case.

Prince Harry has today won his bid to challenge the Home Office’s decision to cut his police protection – but also suffered a blow to his case.

The Duke of Sussex is suing his own grandmother the Queen’s government after it refused to spend taxpayers’ money on his bodyguards when he quit the Royal Family.

A High Court judge will now look again at the decision to turn down his demands after Megxit, The Sun reports.

But in a blow to his case, a judge threw out some of Harry’s reasons for reopening the matter – which could weaken his argument.

In the first stage of the case earlier this month, Harry’s lawyers asked Mr Justice Swift to grant permission for a full hearing to have a judge review the Home Office’s decision.

Their challenge concerned the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures’ (Ravec) decision over his security, after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protection when visiting.

Prince Harry addresses the United Nations (UN) general assembly during the UN's annual celebration of Nelson Mandela International Day on July 18, 2022 in New York City. Picture: Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP.

In a judgment today, Mr Justice Swift said the case could proceed, but only granted permission for some of Harry’s claims to have a judicial review.

He said: “The application for permission to apply for judicial review is allowed in part and refused in part.”

The judge rejected arguments which Harry put forward to say he should have been told who members of Ravec were and that he did not have the opportunity to comment on the “appropriateness” of Ravec’s process and certain individuals involved.

He also dismissed Harry’s suggestions that it was unlawful for Ravec not to provide security to any Royal who must ask the Queen’s permission to marry.

Mr Justice Swift instead agreed with the Home Office that the duke’s claim about who specifically should be protected is irrelevant.

And referencing “tensions” between Harry and one of the Queen’s top aides who was a Ravec member, he said “while the Claimant may have had disagreements with persons who were Ravec committee members, there was no evidence to support a claim that any committee member had approached decisions with a closed mind or that either decision was affected by bias”.

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, leave at the end of the National Service of thanksgiving for The Queen's reign at Saint Paul's Cathedral in London. Picture: Matt Dunham / AFP.

He added the Home Office is “yet to have the chance to address in evidence” the process by which Ravec took its decision and this “should be considered at a final hearing”.

Harry’s legal team had argued the security arrangements set out in a letter from Ravec, and their application when he visited the UK in June 2021, were invalid due to “procedural unfairness”.

They said Harry believes the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, “should not have been involved” in the February 2020 decision, adding there were “significant tensions” between the pair.

And in written arguments, Ms Fatima said Harry was not given a “clear and full explanation” of the composition of Ravec and those involved in its decision-making – for example, that it included the Royal Household.

She also said his understanding was that his points regarding security, which he passed on to the Royal Household, were being “fully and properly communicated to Ravec”.

Ms Fatima said he was denied the opportunity to make representations directly to Ravec and was “materially prejudiced” because “among other things, his offer to pay (for security) was not conveyed to Ravec before the decision was made”.

She added: “He does not know what else – as communicated by him to the Royal Household – was not fully/timeously conveyed to Ravec.

“He was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of Ravec’s process (and) the involvement of certain individuals in the Ravec process prior to the decision being made.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, attend the 2020 UN Nelson Mandela Prize award ceremony at the United Nations in New York on July 18, 2022. Picture: Timothy A. Clary / AFP.

Protection row

“It is arguable that, if there had been a fair process, Ravec would or could have reached a different decision.”

The filing also read: “(Prince Harry’s) offer (to pay for police protection) was made at a meeting on 13 January 2020 at which members of TRH [The Royal Household] were present and is also referred to in an email to Sir Edward Young of 16 April 2020.

“There has been no explanation of why the offer was not conveyed.”

Lawyers for the Home Office said Ravec was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that the duke’s security arrangements will be considered on a “case-by-case” basis, and argue that permission for a full judicial review should be refused.

Sir James also said there is “no basis for the court to conclude that it would be anything other than highly likely” that allowing Harry to make representations to Ravec before the decision was made “would not have led to that decision being substantially different, or even at all different”.

Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, said in written arguments that any tensions between Harry and Royal Household officials are “irrelevant” to his change in status.

He said: “In his skeleton, the claimant now refers to objections he might have made to any role being played by officials of the Royal Household in Ravec’s decision-making – apparently because of personal tensions he felt with them.

“But there is no bias challenge and any such tensions are irrelevant to the undisputed fact of the claimant’s change in status which led to the decision of Ravec.

“The inability of the claimant even now to explain how a process of representations could or would have assisted is striking.”

This article was originally published by The Sun and was reproduced with permission.