PRINCE Harry has lost his appeal against the decision to axe his publicly-funded security after moaning: “My life is at stake”.
The Duke of Sussex brought the case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).

5

5
Harry claimed he was “singled out” after his round-the-clock royal protection was stripped in the wake of Megxit.
He also attempted to sue the Home Office because it refused to spend taxpayers’ money on bodyguards after he left the Royal Family.
Earlier this month, Harry returned to the UK for a two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London.
It came after High Court judge Sir Peter Lane previously rejected the duke’s case and ruled Ravec’s approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
Now Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis have ruled in favour of/against Harry.
At the appeal hearing, Harry’s lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC said he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
The lawyer added: “There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake.
“There is a person sitting behind me who’s being told that he is getting a special and bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
She added: “We say that his presence here and through this appeal is a potent illustration, were one needed, about how much this appeal means to him and family.”
Ms Fatima also touched on Megxit – claiming in written documents that Harry and Meghan Markle felt “forced” to leave to the Royal Family as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.
In court documents, his team highlighted “recent security incidents” surrounding the Duke.
This included Al-Qaeda calling for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec’s decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.
Another refers to a May 2023 incident after “[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City”.
But the government argued Harry’s “bare disagreement” with the decision to remove his security “does not amount to a ground of appeal”.
They claimed that while Harry “disagrees vehemently” with his security arrangements, his views are “largely irrelevant”.
The Home Office also claim they did not act “irrationally” and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry’s claim.
Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
The royal moaned he was unable to return with Meghan and his children Archie and Lilibet, “because it is too dangerous”.
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
Harry also wanted to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused – with insiders insisting cops are not “guns for hire”.
In his ruling in February, Sir Peter Lane said there had not been any “unlawfulness” in the call to pull Harry’s security.
He said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.
The judge added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”

5

5

5