Prince Harry today sensationally lost his battle for taxpayer-funded armed police bodyguards when in the UK.  

The Duke of Sussex feels that he has been unfairly treated and picked on ever since stepping back as a senior royal. He believes that the main reason for his actions was to protect his family’s safety and security in the UK.

His barrister argued that the removal of Met Police armed bodyguards when he is in the UK has left the royal’s life ‘at stake’. 

Even though he lives in California now, he recently took legal action against the Home Office’s decision, which involved the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) determining his level of protection while in Britain.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, acknowledged the Duke’s strong feelings about the situation, stating that the Duke truly felt he had been mistreated by the system.

‘But I concluded, having studied the detail, I could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument to challenge RAVEC’s decision’.

He added: ‘My conclusion was that the Duke of Sussex’s appeal would be dismissed’. 

The King and his youngest son are believed to have differing views over Harry’s decision to pursue his legal fight with the Home Office, which has cost the British taxpayer at least £500,000 so far.

Today the Court of Appeal found against him, paving the way for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

It means that for now, armed police bodyguards, paid for by the British taxpayer, will not be reinstated for him, Meghan and their two children when they are in the UK. 

At a two-day hearing in April, barristers for the duke told the Court of Appeal that he was ‘singled out’ for ‘inferior treatment’ and that his safety, security and life are ‘at stake’.

The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposes the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that Ravec’s decision was taken in a ‘unique set of circumstances’ and that there was ‘no proper basis’ for challenging it.

The Duke of Sussex at the Royal Courts of Justice on April 8 during his appeal against a High Court ruling preventing him getting taxpayer-funded police protection in the UK. It was taken away following Megxit

The Duke of Sussex’s appeal against the dismissal of his legal challenge over the level of protection he and his family (pictured together at Christmas) is about his family’s right to security and safety, the court heard

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.

Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that its decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful.

Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex ‘felt forced to step back’ from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they ‘were not being protected by the institution’.

After Ravec’s decision, al Qaida called for Harry ‘to be murdered’, and his security team was informed that the terrorist group had published a document which said his ‘assassination would please the Muslim community’, Ms Fatima added.

She continued that Ravec did not get an assessment from an ‘expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB’ and came up with a ‘different and so-called ‘bespoke process’.

She said: ‘The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.’

Ms Fatima added: ‘The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family.

‘The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.’

The Duke of Sussex returned to London for the appeal

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that the duke’s appeal ‘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’.

He continued that Ravec treats the duke in a ‘bespoke manner’, which was ‘better suited’ to his circumstances.

Sir James said: ‘He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.

‘Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.’

Harry attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, and could be seen taking notes and talking with part of his legal team during the appeal.

Parts of the hearing were held in private, meaning the press and public could not be in court, to discuss confidential matters.