Photo Credit: Getty Images
Prince Harry's legal battle to restore his taxpayer-funded U.K. security has officially come to an end, unsuccessfully. On May 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal in London rejected his bid, with Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos delivering a unanimous verdict alongside two other justices. "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate. Indeed, it seemed sensible," Vos stated, backing the Royal and VIP Executive Committee's (RAVEC) decision to assess Harry's protection on a case-by-case basis.
The ruling follows years of legal wrangling since Harry and Meghan Markle stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and relocated to California. Their withdrawal triggered the removal of automatic police protection—one Harry says placed his family at risk. "His worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure," the Duke said after the April 8–9 hearing, expressing deep disappointment.
Back in February 2024, a High Court had already sided with the Home Office, arguing that RAVEC's discretionary approach was neither irrational nor unfair. Harry had secured permission to appeal that ruling, raising hopes within his legal camp. A source had said they were "cautiously optimistic." That hope ended with Friday's judgment, now leaving the Duke liable for both government and personal legal costs.
During the appeal, Harry's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, insisted he had been treated differently from others with similar threat profiles. "There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior," she argued. The government's lawyer, James Eadie KC, countered that Harry's case "ignored the totality of the picture," and involved cherry-picking from evidence.
Since losing automatic security, Harry's legal team cited at least two significant threats. One included an al-Qaida document referencing his assassination as a target. In another incident, the couple was reportedly chased by paparazzi in New York, raising concerns about parallels to Princess Diana's death in 1997.
This latest decision also deepens the ongoing rift between Prince Harry and his father, King Charles III. While Harry has implied the monarch could have intervened, palace sources maintain otherwise. "Nothing has changed," said a source close to the palace, referencing their distant relationship.
