Prince Harry loses security appeal in major blow from UK court

Prince Harry lost his appeal challenging the UK government’s decision to strip him of his publicly funded security after he stepped back as a senior royal.

On Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that a committee hadn’t treated the Duke of Sussex unfairly when it decided to review his protection on a case-by-case basis each time he visits his home country.

The ruling is likely to leave the 40-year-old with a large bill to pay the UK government’s legal fees, in addition to his own lawyers’ costs. It wasn’t immediately clear if the father of two would try to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

Prince Harry has lost his appeal concerning his public security in the UK. (Wiktor Szymanowicz/Anadolu Agency)

Fox News Digital reached out to Archewell, which handles the Duke of Sussex’s office, for comment.

The ruling upheld a High Court judge’s decision last year that found that a “bespoke” plan for Harry’s security wasn’t unlawful, irrational or unjustified.

Last month, the British prince made a rare appearance for a two-day hearing. At the time, his lawyer argued that his life was in danger and the Royal and VIP Executive Committee had singled him out for inferior treatment.

In 2020, Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, made their royal exit, citing the unbearable intrusions of the British press and lack of support from the palace. They moved to California.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry married in 2018 and moved to California in 2020. (Chris Jackson)

“There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect,” said attorney Shaheed Fatima. “His presence here and throughout this appeal is a potent illustration – were one needed – of how much this appeal means to him and his family.”

Harry’s lawyer also noted that he felt his family wasn’t “being protected by the institution.”

A lawyer for the government said that Harry’s argument repeated his misconceived approach that failed in the lower court.

“It involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture,” said attorney James Eadie.

In court, Harry’s lawyers said that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they were considered they were not being protected by the institution.” Harry had “wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the royal family.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.