Prince Harry’s Legal Fight Over Siren‑Tuned Police Protection
On Thursday (July 7) a High Court hearing saw Prince Harry’s solicitor, Shaheed Fatima, argue that the royal household should never have been involved in the UK government’s decision to strip the former prince of his police protection, even after he offered to pay for it himself.
The Decision that Triggered a Battle
- In February 2020, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) – acting on behalf of the Home Office – decided that Prince Harry would no longer receive uniformed guard protection once he stepped away from his official duties.
- Prince Harry, who left the UK two years ago for a quieter life in America with Meghan, has now taken legal action to challenge that ruling.
- Shaheed Fatima claims that the queen’s private secretary, Edward Young, was part of the group that made the final call, a fact the prince was not aware of.
“I Didn’t Know It Was a Royal Decision”
Fatima told the judge that Harry was told the decision was independent, and the prince had no chance to present his case. “If there had been a fair process, RAVEC would or could have reached a different outcome,” the lawyer added.
Home Office’s Counter‑Argument
The Home Office’s legal team, led by James Eadie, insists that the removal of protection was purely a matter of Prince Harry’s status change to a non‑working royal—bringing “no relevance” to any strained relationship with the royal household. The office stressed that RAVEC is not required to maintain permanent protection.
Cost Matters
In the official documents, the Home Office promised that if the application was denied, they would seek all costs incurred. “The public purse should not cover a claim that should not have been brought at all,” they wrote.
What’s Next?
The court’s timetable indicates a decision on whether to grant a full judicial review will come by the end of the month. The stakes? A potential reinstatement of police protection for Prince Harry—and whether the bring‑back comes at taxpayers’ expense.
