The Duke of Sussex has secured the right to appeal for increased personal security during his visits to the UK.
Prince Harry has been embroiled in a four-year legal battle with the government following a decision in February 2020 to reduce his taxpayer-funded protection. This decision came after Harry and his wife Meghan stepped down as working royals and relocated to North America, prompting the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to alter his security arrangements.
Harry claims that this decision has put him and his family at risk.
Earlier this year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane dismissed Harry's claim, stating that Ravec’s actions were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair and should not be overturned.
However, Prince Harry has now been granted permission to challenge Sir Peter's ruling in the Court of Appeal.
Following the February ruling, Harry's lawyers indicated their intention to appeal, arguing that the handling of the Duke's case had been "legally sound". Sir Peter had accepted comments from Sir Richard Mottram, former chairman of Ravec, who said that even if he had received all of Harry's legal arguments in February 2020, "I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons".
Harry contends that Ravec used a "bespoke" process for him that deviated from the written policy applied to others, particularly by excluding him from a risk analysis.
"The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal," his lawyers stated.
Ravec, under the Home Office's delegation, is responsible for providing protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and VIPs, involving the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office, and the royal household.
Lord Justice Bean announced the decision to grant permission to appeal in a ruling dated May 23, which only recently came to light.
During the High Court case, it was revealed that the Duke had been threatened by the terrorist group Al Qaeda after claiming in his memoir "Spare" to have killed 25 Taliban fighters while serving in Afghanistan.
Following the High Court case, Harry faced the prospect of paying 90 percent of the Home Office’s legal costs after losing the case.
His initial application for permission to appeal was rejected by a High Court judge, but he has now succeeded in his second attempt by applying directly to the Court of Appeal. Photo by Minerva97, Wikimedia commons.