The decision to pare back the duke’s protection was made by a Home Office group called the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec). It ruled that the prince and his family should no longer get the “same degree” of protection they were previously afforded when living full-time in the U.K.
Harry was granted permission to challenge the Home Office, with his lawyers arguing the decision to remove police protection was made unfairly. The off-duty royal claimed “procedural unfairness” and bias in its decision making.
That argument was rejected by the High Court Wednesday, with Justice Peter Lane issuing a partially-redacted 51-page ruling dismissing the claim “that there was any procedural unfairness” in Ravec’s decision-making.
“Insofar as the case-by-case approach may otherwise have caused difficulties, they have not been shown to be such as to overcome the high hurdle so as to render the decision-making irrational,” Lane’s judgment reads.
