Prince Harry’s humiliating courtroom defeat

The Duke of Sussex has lost a huge legal fight in the UK and there could be a multimillion-dollar price to pay for the royal.

Prince Harry has lost his publicly-funded security appeal in a humiliating blow after claiming “my life is at stake”.

He could now face a $3 million legal bill.

In an wide ranging interview with teh BBC following hsi court defeat, teh prince also said the King “won’t speak to me,” that he doesn’t “know how much longer my father has” and that he would “love a reconcilation” with his family.

The Duke of Sussex brought the case against the UK’s Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec.

The legal row centred on to what extent the Sussex’s could expect security to be provided to them when in the UK given they had stepped down from royal duties and moved to the US.

The UK government downgraded their security and said protection would be provided on a case-by-case basis when he returned and he has to give notice.

But Prince Harry had argued his family needed around-the-clock protection within the UK because of threats.

Earlier this month, Harry returned to the UK for a two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London. He was not in court for the verdict on Friday, UK time. He may decide to appeal to the UK’s highest courts, the Supreme Court.

In court, Harry had claimed this was the legal fight that “always mattered the most” to him.

Harry had said he was “singled out” after his around-the-clock royal protection was axed in the wake of he and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, resigning from their royal duties, reports The Sun.

He also bizarrely claimed stripping him of his security was a plot to force him and Meghan Markle back to Britain.

But on Friday, UK time, in Britain’s Court of Appeal, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis ruled against him in a humiliating blow for the prince.

The loss – his second unsuccessful appeal against the decision – could be the final nail in the coffin for his security row, although the prince could still take his fight to the Supreme Court.

It also means he faces paying the legal costs for both sides, which is estimated to amount to more than £1.5 million ($A3.09 million).

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice, Britain's High Court, in central London, on April 8, 2025. (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP)

In his Judgement, Sir Geoffrey said Harry’s arguments had been “moving” but did not amount to an actual legal challenge.

He added: “The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec”.

“Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate.”

Sir Geoffrey continued: “It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible”.

The judge continued: “From the Duke of Sussex’s point of view, I said that something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK”.

“That did not in itself give rise to a legal complaint.”

Following the two-day appeal hearing earlier this month, Harry later moaned his “worst fears have been confirmed” by secret evidence he heard in court.

He complained that the decision to withdraw his security had been “difficult to swallow” and that he felt it was just a ploy to lure him and Meghan back into the Royal Family.

The duke claimed: “People would be shocked by what’s being held back”.

Harry also hinted he would never be able to forgive what he viewed as a deliberate move to scrap the protection for his family.

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex waves as he arrives to attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, at St Paul's Cathedral in central London, on May 8, 2024. (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP)

It came after his lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC said he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.

The lawyer added: “There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake”.

“There is a person sitting behind me who’s being told that he is getting a special and bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”

She added: “We say that his presence here and through this appeal is a potent illustration, were one needed, about how much this appeal means to him and family”.

Ms Fatima also touched on “Megxit” – claiming in written documents that Harry and Meghan Markle felt “forced” to leave to the Royal Family as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.

In court documents, his team highlighted “recent security incidents” surrounding the Duke.

This included al-Qaeda calling for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec’s decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.

Another refers to a May 2023 incident after “[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City”.

But the government argued Harry’s “bare disagreement” with the decision to remove his security “does not amount to a ground of appeal”.

Britain's Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, attend a children's event at the 2023 Invictus Games in Dusseldorf, western Germany on September 13, 2023. Prince Harry Friday, may 2, lost his court bid to restore his UK police protection after the UK government downgraded his security when he stepped back from royal life and moved abroad. (Photo by Odd ANDERSEN / AFP)

They claimed that while Harry “disagrees vehemently” with his security arrangements, his views are “largely irrelevant”.

The Home Office also claim they did not act “irrationally” and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry’s claim.

Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.

Harry and Meghan were stripped of their around-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.

The royal said he was unable to return with Meghan and his children Archie and Lilibet, “because it is too dangerous”.

He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends in a bespoke arrangement.

Harry also wanted to fund his own Police armed bodyguards but officials refused – with insiders insisting cops are not “guns for hire”.

Today’s ruling comes after High Court judge Sir Peter Lane previously rejected the duke’s case and ruled Ravec’s approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.

In his ruling in February, the judge said there had not been any “unlawfulness” in the call to pull Harry’s security.

He also explained Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.

The judge added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”

This story was published by The Sun and is reproduced with permission.