Prince Harry vowed to appeal after losing a High Court battle with the Home Office over downgrading his police protection.
The Duke of Sussex potentially faces a large bill to reimburse taxpayers’ legal costs after a judge said he had failed to prove the decision was unlawful or unfair.
Harry, 39, took the Home Office to court over no longer being given the ‘same degree’ of protection after he and wife Meghan quit royal life and left Britain in January 2020.
He compared the dangers to him and his family to the risks his mother Princess Diana faced before her death in 1997 while being chased by paparazzi.
It emerged in the 52-page ruling yesterday that he had demanded to know who in government was responsible for the decision, saying: ‘I would like that person’s name.’
Prince Harry (pictured last March outside the High Court) vowed to appeal after losing a High Court battle with the Home Office over downgrading his police protection
He complained his visits to Britain were unsafe – and Judge Sir Peter Lane said that when he and Meghan used a train to visit Manchester in September 2022, he 'raised concerns because of his proximity to the public'.
Harry's American private security specialist told the High Court that Harry had felt cornered during a visit to the Wellchild Awards in Kew, West London in June 2021 when 'paparazzi made them feel like sitting ducks'.
He argued he had been 'singled out' and treated unfairly when his automatic police protection was withdrawn following the 'Sandringham Summit' with the late Queen in January 2020 just before leaving the UK.
After feeling unsafe when he came to Britain in the summer of 2021 to unveil a statue of his late mother with his brother William, Harry took court action.
He brought a judicial review against the decision by the executive committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the Home Office.
At a hearing in London last December, the Government insisted Harry's claim should be dismissed, arguing Ravec was entitled to conclude the Duke's protection should be 'bespoke' and considered on a 'case-by-case' basis.
Lawyers for the Home Office said Britain had 'finite public resources' and that it was appropriate for police protection to be limited to those 'acting in the interests of the state through their public role'. Sir Peter's ruling concluded 'there has not been any unlawfulness' in Ravec's decision nor was it 'irrational' or 'marred by procedural unfairness'.
Harry had argued that, just because he was no longer a frontline royal, that did not diminish the threats he faced by virtue of being in the line of succession to the throne and 'a Prince of the realm'.
But the judge said Ravec 'was well aware of the claimant's status, background and profile' when it made its decision.
Prince Harry and Meghan, pictured at an Invictus Games event in Canada on February 14, 2024
Sir Peter praised the Ravec committee, and its then chairman Sir Richard Mottram, for their 'significant knowledge and expertise' in a highly specialist area.
Harry insisted that Ravec should have considered the 'impact that a successful attack' on him would have.
But the judge said it would be 'bizarre' if the highly experienced chairman of Ravec 'would not have had in mind the consequences of a successful attack' and yet Ravec had still not shared Harry's concern.
Within hours of the judgment, a spokesman for Harry announced he would appeal it, adding that he was 'not asking for preferential treatment but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec's own rules'.
It is the latest court blow to Harry after he admitted defeat last month in a libel case against The Mail on Sunday over articles it had published about his battle with the Home Office.
The Duke was left facing a £750,000 legal bill after abandoning his case just six hours before a deadline for handing over a list of documents.