Prince Harry has demanded to know the name of the person who had his Home Office police protection downgraded, court documents have revealed.
A judge ruled that the Duke of Sussex had not proven that the downgrade was illegal or unjust, which might result in a significant fee for Harry to pay back taxpayers' legal costs.
The Home Office was sued by Prince Harry, 39, because he felt he was no longer receiving the "same degree" of security following his and Meghan Markle's departure from the UK in 2020.
He likened the threats to himself and his family to that of his mother, Princess Diana, who was pursued by paparazzi prior to her death in 1997.
Prince Harry is appealing the High Court's decision
Getty
It emerged in the 52-page ruling yesterday that Harry had demanded to know who in Government was responsible for the decision, saying: "I would like that person's name."
He claimed that his trips to Britain were dangerous, and Judge Sir Peter Lane stated that he "raised concerns because of his proximity to the public" when he and Meghan travelled to Manchester in September 2022 by train.
During a June 2021 visit to the Wellchild Awards in Kew, West London, Prince Harry's American private security specialist said before the High Court that he felt besieged because "paparazzi made them feel like sitting ducks."
When his automatic police protection was taken away during the "Sandringham Summit" with the late Queen Elizabeth II in January 2020, shortly before he left the UK, he claimed he had been "singled out" and treated unfairly.
Prince Harry lost his High Court battle on Wednesday
GettyHarry filed a lawsuit after feeling uneasy during his visit to Britain in the summer of 2021 to unveil a statue of his late mother alongside his brother Prince William.
He filed a judicial review to overturn the ruling made by the executive committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
During a December hearing in London, the Government maintained that Ravec had the right to determine that the duke's protection should be "bespoke" and evaluated "case-by-case," rejecting Harry's argument.
Home Office lawyers argued that police protection should only be extended to people who were "acting in the interests of the state through their public role" because Britain had "finite public resources".
Prince Harry wants to know who's personally responsible for downgrading his police protection
Reuters
According to Sir Peter's opinion, Ravec's conclusion was neither "irrational" nor "marred by procedural unfairness." Therefore, "there has not been any unlawfulness".
Harry had contended that because he was "a Prince of the realm" and in the line of succession to the monarchy, the threats he faced did not disappear just because he was no longer a working royal.
However, the judge stated that during the decision-making process, Ravec "was well aware of the claimant's status, background, and profile".
LATEST ROYAL NEWS:
Harry and Meghan stepped down as working royals in 2020PAHarry argued that Ravec ought to have thought about the "impact that a successful attack" would have on him.
But the judge declared it "bizarre" if the highly experienced chairman of Ravec "would not have had in mind the consequences of a successful attack".
Within hours of the judgment, a spokesman for Prince 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".
