May 2 (UPI) — Britain’s Prince Harry, the duke of Sussex, will not get increased taxpayer-funded security while in that country after losing a legal battle Friday.
Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos ruled against Harry’s legal team in the British Court of Appeal, arguing he “could not say that the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec’s decision.”
Security for the prince and his family will now remain below the level normally provided to other Royal Family members by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee.
Harry’s level of security protection while in Britain was downgraded in 2020 when he and wife Meghan Markle, the duchess of Sussex, announced they would “step back” from their duties as members of the Royal Family.
The family argued that the reduced security forced them to stop regularly visiting Britain because of safety concerns.
Harry and Meghan moved to Southern California after stepping back from the Royal Family, where they continue to reside.
Last year, Harry lost a decision in Britain’s High Court of Justice to have the regular security level reinstated. He took his fight to the British Court of Appeal, which heard the case last month over two days in London.
Lawyers for the youngest son of King Charles III, had previously argued that Ravec’s treatment of Harry, his wife and two children was unlawful. They accused the agency of targeting the family through a “bespoke process” and Harry was “singled-out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”
Britain’s High Court rejected the arguments, calling the Ravec decision “legally sound.”
“Even if there had been a risk analysis from the risk management board, it would very likely have only confirmed the threat, vulnerability and impact levels which the Duke of Sussex had faced when earlier risk analyses were undertaken,” Vos, the President of the court’s Civil Division, wrote in his ruling Friday.
“But it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation, namely the need for protective security on future uncertain visits and the government’s appetite for risk.”