Prince Harry’s appeal for a judicial review concerning the reduction of his government-provided security has been declined. This decision leaves Harry and his family dealing with potential safety threats without comprehensive state protection, prompting widespread criticism.
The cut in Harry’s security followed his decision to step back from royal duties and move to the U.S. in January 2020. His protective detail saw a significant decrease despite his prominent status, leading to debates about adequate safety measures for a public figure like him.
The High Court, while disclosing its judgement, stated that risk evaluation based on individual cases did not indicate any bias. They insisted that such an approach was impartial, focusing solely on the merit and particulars of each case, rejecting any claims of favouritism.
The executive committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) was the body responsible for reducing Harry’s security. They stated that the change in Harry’s royal commitments had lowered his security risk, noting that although reduced, the protection offered is appropriate for his current circumstances.
Prince Harry’s legal team claimed “procedural unfairness” and alleged bias in the decision-making process, arguing that the reduction in his security detail was not transparent or fairly considered. However, Justice Peter Lane rejected these claims, asserting no evidence of “procedural unfairness” in Ravec’s decision-making, effectively shutting down Harry’s case against the UK government.
