Advertisement We need your help now Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open. You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough. If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it. One-off amount I already contribute Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you. An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more. Investigates Investigates Money Diaries Daft.ie Property Magazine Allianz Home Magazine The 42 Sports Magazine The Journal TV Climate Crisis Cost of Living Road Safety Newsletters Temperature Check Inside the Newsroom The Journal Investigates The Explainer A deep dive into one big news story Sport meets news, current affairs, society & pop culture have your say Or create a free account to join the discussion Advertisement More Stories Prince HarryAlamy Stock Photo Prince Harry Prince Harry loses Court of Appeal bid over the level of protection he gets on UK visits Prince Harry’s barristers told the Court of Appeal last month that his life was ‘at stake’ following the decision to change his security when in the UK. 3.58pm, 2 May 2025 Share options BRITAIN’S PRINCE HARRY has lost a Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements while in the UK. Harry, 40, had appealed against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK. His barristers told a two-day hearing in April that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that Ravec did not follow its own “terms of reference” when deciding his security. The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposed the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that a “bespoke” process was used for Harry and he had “no proper basis” for challenging Ravec’s decision. In a ruling on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry’s appeal. Reading a summary of the decision, Vos said: “The duke (Prince Harry) 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.” He continued: “It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible.” Vos also said Ravec’s decision was “understandable and perhaps predictable”. The judge added that arguments from Harry’s barrister were “powerful and moving”, and that it was “plain that the duke felt badly treated by the system”. Advertisement But he continued: “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.” Harry was not present at Friday’s short hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household. Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that its decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful. Harry attended both days of last month’s appeal against the ruling, where his barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, said his safety, security and life are “at stake”, and that the “human dimension” of the case should not be forgotten. She added: “We do say that his presence here, and throughout this appeal, is a potent illustration, were one needed, of how much this appeal means to him and his family.” Judges were told Harry’s case was not that he should be automatically entitled to the same protection he was given as a working royal, and instead he should be subjected to the same processes as other people being considered for protective security, unless there was a “cogent” reason not to. Lawyers for the Harry also said that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body” called the risk management board. However, in the 21-page written judgment, Vos said he did not think Harry had been “able to demonstrate that the judge was wrong to determine” that Sir Richard Mottram, then chairman of Ravec, had “good reason to depart” from policy. He said: “In this area of high political sensitivity, the court will inevitably have considerable respect for Mottram as a decision maker, whose expertise and experience in the field of royal protection is probably unrivalled.” The judge also said that the decisions made “were not to deprive the claimant of all protection for all time”, adding: “The decision letter recorded that decisions would be made about the appropriate protection for him on a case-by-case basis when more was known about his visits to the UK.” During the delivery of the summary of the Court of Appeal’s decision, loud noises thought to be from a nearby animal could be heard in the courtroom. Press Association Send Tip or Correction Embed this post To embed this post, copy the code below on your site Email “Prince Harry loses Court of Appeal bid over the level of protection he gets on UK visits”. Recipient's Email Feedback on “Prince Harry loses Court of Appeal bid over the level of protection he gets on UK visits”. Your Feedback Your Email (optional) Report a Comment Please select the reason for reporting this comment. Please give full details of the problem with the comment... Court of Appeal police protection Prince Harry News in 60 seconds Family 'scarred' as man who murdered 'remarkable' woman with carving knife is sentenced to life Exclusive: Michael Shine shows no remorse and claims accusers are motivated by money Saoirse McGarrigle 20 mins ago Green light given for extra floor to be added to former U2 Hotel, The Clarence, in Dublin 23 mins ago Immigration Germany's far-right AfD party classified as extremist group by domestic intelligence agency 26 mins ago Court of Appeal McGregor seeks to introduce evidence from new witness in appeal of civil sexual assault finding 52 mins ago gardiner street Woman (60s) seriously injured in e-scrambler hit-and-run in Dublin city centre Truck driver who seriously injured father of rugby star Conor Murray jailed for 10 months RT broadcaster Chay Bowes detained and denied entry to Romania falling tsar Housing tsar controversy: McDonagh tells minister he no longer wants to be considered for job Catholic Church After changing his date of birth, this Cardinal from Burkina Faso can now vote in the conclave Signalgate fallout: Trump nominates national security advisor Mike Waltz as US ambassador to UN more from us Investigates Daft.ie Property Magazine Allianz Home Magazine The 42 Sports Magazine Money Diaries The Journal TV Journal Media Advertise With Us About FactCheck Our Network FactCheck Knowledge Bank Terms & Legal Notices Terms of Use Cookies & Privacy Advertising Competition more from us TV Listings GAA Fixtures The Video Review Journal Media Advertise With Us Our Network The Journal FactCheck Knowledge Bank Terms & Legal Notices Terms of Use Cookies & Privacy Advertising Competition © 2025 Journal Media Ltd Terms of Use Cookies & Privacy Advertising Competition Switch to Desktop Switch to Mobile The Journal supports the work of the Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman, and our staff operate within the Code of Practice. You can obtain a copy of the Code, or contact the Council, at https://www.presscouncil.ie, PH: (01) 6489130, Lo-Call 1800 208 080 or email: mailto:info@presscouncil.ie Report an error, omission or problem: Your Email (optional) Create Email Alert Create an email alert based on the current article Email Address One email every morning As soon as new articles come online