Prince Harry faces £1m legal bill after losing legal challenge (original) (raw)

Prince Harry faces an estimated legal bill of more than £1 million after losing a challenge against the Home Office over his right to automatic police protection in the UK.

The Duke of Sussex, 39, was criticised by the High Court judge who dismissed his case in a scathing 52-page ruling.

Mr Justice Lane insisted that the decision made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) had not been irrational or procedurally unfair. He also rejected the Duke’s “inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the process.

The Duke has vowed to appeal. His legal spokesman said he was “not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others”.

He will first have to seek permission to appeal and then set out his grounds.

A Freedom of Information request revealed that by mid-October last year, the Government’s legal costs in defending itself against Harry’s claims had already topped £400,000, two months before December’s three-day hearing.

At that stage, the case had already cost the Government legal department £265,437 and counsel £137,864.

It means the Duke now faces having to pay back the taxpayer at least £500,000 after losing his challenge. His own legal costs are likely to be similar, if not more.

The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the Royal family taking legal action against the Government.

It came as the Duke appeared in two video messages, one honouring Josh Boggi, a triple amputee Afghanistan veteran, at the Sport Gives Back Awards and the other, appealing for nominations for the WellChild Awards.

The Duke applied for a judicial review after Ravec declared in February 2020 that he and his family were no longer entitled to the “same degree” of personal security when visiting Britain.

Instead, the committee created a “bespoke” approach that involved assessing each visit on its merits but which has resulted in the Duke being denied police protection on each subsequent return to the UK.

His legal challenge was based on an alleged lack of transparency about Ravec’s composition and processes, as he argued that he had been denied a “clear and full explanation” of the composition of Ravec and how it operates.

He also argued that he had been “singled out” and treated “less favourably” than others by Ravec, which had subjected him to “unlawful and unfair treatment”.

His lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, 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 late mother Diana, Princess of Wales, with “additional layers of racism and extremism”. In a letter he sent to Sir Mark Sedwill, then the cabinet secretary, he also expressed “disbelief” over his security arrangements.

Damning assessment

However, Mr Justice Lane delivered a damning assessment of his case.

He said the “evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness” behind Ravec’s decision.

Appearing to criticise the Duke’s assertion that Ravec had failed to consider the impact of a “successful attack”, he said: “The impact both at home and abroad of a successful attack on a particular individual lies at the heart of the rationale for Ravec’s existence.

“It would be bizarre if the highly-experienced chair of Ravec, making a decision about the claimant, would not have had in mind the consequences of a successful attack.”

The judge also said the Duke’s criticism of Ravec’s approach had failed to “engage with the nature of Ravec’s decision-making.”

The committee, he said, was “not only entitled but obliged” to approach its remit on a case by case basis, not least given their exceptional characteristics.

“Ravec was plainly under no obligation to adopt an explicitly comparative exercise of the kind for which the claimant contends and to draw from it only the conclusion that the claimant wished to see,” he said.

In a statement, the Duke’s legal spokesman confirmed he would appeal the judgment, noting that Ravec membership comprised representatives from the Home Office, the Royal Household and the Met Police.

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis,” it said.

“The Duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him, is no substitute for that risk analysis. The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

The Home Office welcomed the ruling and said it was now considering its next steps.

“The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate,” a statement said.

“It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”