After stepping down from their senior working royal roles in 2020 and relocating to the United States, Prince Harry, aged 38, and his wife Meghan Markle lost their entitlement to police protection.
In February 2020, the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures (known as Ravec), which operates with delegated powers from the Home Office, made the decision.
Despite Prince Harry's offer to fund his own police security in the UK, he was informed that he and his family would not be granted armed police protection, as officers were not available for hire.
Prince Harry has expressed concerns about the safety of his young children, 4-year-old Archie and nearly 2-year-old Lilibet, when visiting their home country without proper police security. He has expressed his willingness to pay for the security himself, but he requires approval from the UK Home Office.
In July of last year, Prince Harry was granted permission to seek a judicial review of the decision, but a full hearing is yet to take place. On Tuesday, May 16th, 2023, the Duke's attorney presented arguments against the decision in a London High Court.
According to the Associated Press, attorney Shaheed Fatima stated that the government had "exceeded its authority" and that the denial of police protection was inconsistent with the legislation allowing a police chief to provide special police services for payment. Fatima pointed out that Parliament had clearly decided that payment for policing is not contrary to the public interest.
Furthermore, Fatima argued that Ravec's decision was "unreasonable" and that Prince Harry was not given the opportunity to present his case to the committee. She stated, "There was no willingness in RAVEC to entertain any exceptions to the policy or listen to representations. We are not even getting our foot through the door. There is no willingness to listen."
The Home Office, on the other hand, maintains that the decision to deny Prince Harry's security detail was "rational and well within the permissible range of decisions open to RAVEC."
The hearing before Justice Chamberlain is ongoing, and the judge has indicated that he will provide his written ruling at a later date.
