UK Judge Rules Against Prince Harry in Security Case

(USNewsBreak.com) – When Prince Harry made the decision to step back from the royal family in 2020, he gave up a bunch of perks that came with membership in “The Firm.” One lost benefit included routine security to protect his family. However, he has insisted that a committee improperly stripped him of the safeguard. A judge recently ruled that wasn’t the case.

On Wednesday, February 28, High Court Judge Peter Lane ruled that Prince Harry has no right to full protection since he is no longer a working member of the royal family. The judge said the prince’s attorneys had adopted “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the RAVEC [Royal and VIP Executive Committee] process.” The judge found the committee’s approach to providing security for Harry and his family was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair, per The Washington Post.

Prince Harry was not improperly stripped of his publicly funded security detail during visits to Britain after he gave up his status as a working member of the royal family and moved to the U.S., a judge ruled. https://t.co/Upd182dzAZ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 28, 2024

The prince sued because he claimed that the media relentlessly hounded him and his wife when they visited the UK and that his safety was paramount. He cited the way his mother, Princess Diana, passed away as a reason he should receive protection at all times.

It’s notable that Harry does, at times, have security forces assigned to guard him. The RAVEC grants armed protection on a case-by-case basis. In fact, he received a security detail in June 2021, when paparazzi chased him in west London after he visited sick children at Kew Gardens.

This matter wasn’t the first case that Prince Harry brought before the High Court regarding his security. In 2023, a judge denied his request to pay personally for London’s police officers to guard him during visits. Instead, the ruling favored a government attorney’s argument that the department didn’t hire and train officers for use as “private bodyguards for the wealthy.”

The Home Office, happy with the ruling, said it was considering the next steps in the process.