Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, has lost his appeal in the Court of Appeal regarding his legal challenge against the U.K. Home Office over the decision to downgrade his security during visits to the United Kingdom. The ruling, delivered on May 23, 2025, by senior judges Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, upholds the earlier High Court decision which supported the security protocol established by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC).

The case, which has been closely followed by both legal and public commentators, centers on the level of state-funded security provided to Prince Harry since he stepped back from official royal duties in 2020.

The Background of the Security Dispute

the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) decided that Prince Harry, no longer being a full-time working royal, would not receive the same automatic level of publicly funded police protection during his time in the U.K. The committee is responsible for determining security arrangements for members of the Royal Family and other key public figures, operating under the guidance of the Home Office and in collaboration with the Metropolitan Police and other government departments.

The decision was made after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle confirmed they would step back from their roles as senior working members of the Royal Family and relocate to North America.

Legal Proceedings and Appeal Efforts

Prince Harry initiated legal action against the Home Office, challenging the RAVEC decision as part of a broader claim concerning personal safety. His legal team argued that the changes to his protection level placed him at elevated risk and were not based on a thorough evaluation of the threats he faced.

In a ruling by the High Court in 2023, the court found that the Home Office’s position was both lawful and reasonable under the circumstances. That ruling concluded that RAVEC’s decision did not demonstrate bias, irrationality, or procedural unfairness. The court emphasized that protection for high-profile individuals is based on dynamic risk assessments, not on title or status alone.

The High Court ruling prompted an appeal to the Court of Appeal, where the Duke of Sussex’s lawyers argued that his treatment by RAVEC was unfair and placed his safety at risk. However, the Court of Appeal has now dismissed this appeal.

Court of Appeal Ruling: Security to Remain Conditional

Delivering the Court of Appeal’s summary, Sir Geoffrey Vos stated that RAVEC’s approach to security for Prince Harry was “sensible” and “understandable.” He explained that the committee viewed Harry as falling “in and out” of the cohort covered by automatic protection, meaning that his security arrangements while in the U.K. would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The judges determined that the RAVEC process for assessing the security needs of Prince Harry upon his visits to the U.K. adhered to lawful procedure and appropriate risk management. They found no evidence of discriminatory treatment or flawed assessment methodology.

Prince Harry did not attend the court session when the ruling was announced.

RAVEC and the UK’s Protective Security System

The RAVEC system plays a central role in determining personal security coverage for public figures. According to GOV.UK, RAVEC includes representatives from the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police Service, the Cabinet Office, and members of the Royal Household. Its purpose is to evaluate and provide appropriate protective security where necessary, taking into account risk levels, public exposure, and operational priorities.

The U.K. government does not guarantee permanent police protection to individuals who are no longer engaged in official public duties, even if they hold royal titles. This position is consistent with longstanding policy, as confirmed by statements from the Home Office and public records from Parliament.

Broader Implications of the Decision

The ruling means that Prince Harry, as a non-working royal residing abroad, will continue to have his security assessed on a discretionary basis when he is in the U.K., without entitlement to automatic or permanent publicly funded protection. This approach applies to other individuals in similar positions, and decisions are guided by threat levels and other criteria evaluated by law enforcement agencies.

This outcome aligns with the principles of security provision for private citizens, even those of high profile. While Prince Harry remains sixth in line to the throne, he does not currently undertake official engagements on behalf of the Royal Family and does not receive public funding through the Sovereign Grant.

Ongoing Legal Context and Public Dialogue

The security case is one of several legal matters Prince Harry has been involved in since stepping away from royal duties. These include defamation claims and privacy cases against media organizations, as well as prior lawsuits related to the publication of personal information.

While the Court of Appeal ruling may mark the end of this particular case, Prince Harry has expressed ongoing concerns about safety for his family, particularly when traveling to the U.K. He has previously stated that he would consider private security options and continues to advocate for reforms to ensure that threat assessments are comprehensive and up-to-date.

Though this legal decision is conclusive in terms of the current proceedings, Prince Harry and his legal representatives have not indicated whether they plan to pursue any further action or appeal to the Supreme Court.

Summary: Legal Framework Upholds RAVEC’s Discretionary Model

The dismissal of Prince Harry’s appeal reinforces the U.K. government’s approach to security for high-profile individuals who are no longer engaged in public service. The decision reaffirms that protective arrangements are based on ongoing assessments and operational necessity rather than titles or past service alone.

As noted by legal observers, including coverage by BBC News and The Guardian, this ruling also emphasizes the importance of established systems like RAVEC in maintaining fairness and accountability in the allocation of state resources.