Prince Harry said he believed that he was at a greater security risk than Princess Diana due to 'racism and extremism', High Court documents reveal

Duke took legal action against Home Office over decision in February 2020Ravec said he should receive different degree of protection when in Britain 

Prince Harry claimed he believed he was at a greater risk of being harmed than his mother due to ‘racism and extremism’, High Court documents have revealed.

The Duke of Sussex said his family would be put in ‘a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago’ by removing his security in a letter to the head of the Home Civil Service.

The 39-year-old said they were ‘additional layers of racism and extremism’ and demanded that ‘someone is comfortable taking accountability’ for what could happen to his wife Meghan Markle, and their children Archie and Lilibet.

In the letter Harry also revealed what he believed to be the biggest threat to his family, although the precise details of what this was were redacted from court documents released on Wednesday.

The same documents revealed that Al Qaeda had called for the father-of-two to be killed after he wrote about killing Taliban fighters.

Prince Harry making pre-flight checks in the cockpit at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan in 2012

Prince Harry and Meghan, pictured at an Invictus Games event in Canada on February 14, 2024

The documents, released after the High Court rejected his challenge against the Home Office to downgrade his taxpayer-funded personal security when he visits Britain, show the Prince’s furious response upon learning of the original decision.

In a letter written to Sir Mark Sedwill, who was Cabinet Secretary at the time, the Duke’s representative Fiona Mcilwham ‘expressed the claimant’s disbelief that such important conversations were being had without any attempt by anyone to consult the claimant’.

She wrote the Duke ‘could not see how he could have his security removed, unless the current risk to him and his family had decreased’.

In the letter Ms Mcilwham said Harry asked ‘who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk’.

Harry claimed this was ‘a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen.

‘I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please …’, he added.

He added he believed it was ‘essential to our safety to keep MET security’ and made reference to specific threats, although these were redacted in the court documents.

The letter also claimed that Harry saw the decision to remove his security ‘without a sensible amount of consultation as some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first’.

The Duke wants to appeal the High Court ruling after he took action over a decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded personal security when he visits Britain.

Harry took legal action over the move by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) after being told he would no longer be given the ‘same degree’ of publicly-funded protection when in the UK.

His lawyers had claimed he was ‘singled out’ and treated ‘less favourably’ in the February 2020 decision by the body, which falls under the Home Office’s remit.

The court also heard that his European security director had pointed out ahead of a trip to Britain last March that Al Qaeda had recently called for him to be killed.

The terrorist group is said to have ordered Harry’s death after he wrote about killing 25 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in his controversial book Spare in January 2023.

But at a hearing in London in December, the Government insisted 39-year-old Harry’s claim should be dismissed, arguing Ravec was entitled to conclude the Duke’s protection should be ‘bespoke’ and considered on a ‘case-by-case’ basis.

Two months on, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane has now issued his ruling on the case this morning – saying: ‘The application for judicial review is refused.’

But a spokesman for Harry said he would appeal, adding that he was ‘not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules’. The Duke will first need a judge to give him the green light to go to the Court of Appeal.

The judgment – which the Home Office later said the Government was ‘pleased’ with – comes amid another 24 hours of royal drama and tragedy in Britain, including:

• The sudden death of Lady Gabriella Windsor’s husband Thomas Kingston;
• Prince William mysteriously pulling out of his godfather’s memorial in Windsor;
• Kensington Palace saying Kate is still ‘doing well’ as she recovers from surgery;
• Harry paid tribute to seriously ill children in a video for the WellChild Awards; 
• Buckingham Palace announcing Princess Anne will visit Dubai this Friday; and 
• The King being seen after also missing the service as his treatment continues.

The Duke of Sussex, pictured leaving the Royal Courts of Justice in London on March 30, 2023

Ravec’s decision came as a result of a change in the duke’s ‘status’ after he stopped being a ‘full-time working member of the royal family’, the judge was told.

The ruling said Harry was in Britain between March 26 to 31 last year to attend a hearing at the High Court against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of MailOnline, related to allegations surrounding unlawful information gathering.

It said Harry’s director of European security emailed someone – whose name is not given, but who was a Ravec member in 2020 – ‘in accordance with the agreed procedure’ to provide ‘formal notice of the Duke of Sussex’s travel to the United Kingdom’.

The ruling said: ‘In light of various matters, including that he was the son of King Charles III, a brother of the Prince of Wales, and that Al Qaeda had recently called for the claimant to be killed, the Director of European Security said that the claimant [redacted text].

‘On March 10, 2023, [redacted text], the Deputy Director of Royalty, VIP and MP Security Unit Homeland Security, wrote to say that Ravec would meet to determine what protective security arrangements should be mandated for the visit.

‘Without pre-empting that decision, [redacted text] said ‘it is clear that the proposed visit [redacted text]. If the Duke wishes to [redacted text]’.’

Your browser does not support iframes.

This is the full judgment in Harry’s case issued by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary on Wednesday

Responding to the ruling, a legal spokesperson for the Duke said on Wednesday: ‘The Duke of Sussex will appeal today’s judgment which refuses his judicial review claim against the decision-making body Ravec, which includes the Home Office, the Royal Household and the Met Police.

‘Although these are not labels used by Ravec, three categories – as revealed during the litigation – comprise the ‘Ravec cohort’: the Role Based Category, the Occasional Category and the Other VIP Category.

‘The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.

‘In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to The Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.

‘The Duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him, is no substitute for that risk analysis.

‘The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.’

A judgment summary in Harry’s case released this morning said the court determined ‘there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision’, adding that it was not ‘irrational’.

The court also found the ‘decision was not marred by procedural unfairness’ and there was no unlawfulness by Ravec in its arrangements for his visits to Britain.

In his 52-page partially redacted ruling, Sir Peter said Harry’s lawyers had taken ‘an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process’.

He added: ‘The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of February 28, 2020 was, and is, legally sound.’

The judge also said: ‘The decision of February 28, 2020 was obviously forward-looking in nature.

‘The suggestion that the claimant should have received both an RMB (risk) analysis and a ‘bespoke’ approach ignores the witness evidence of the defendant which, for the reasons I have given, falls to be given weight.

Harry’s father King Charles III is pictured leaving his London residence Clarence Houseon Wednesday

‘That evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness, as regards the other VIP category.’

Sir Peter also noted it was ‘highly relevant’ that on January 11, 2020, Sir Edward Young, then Queen Elizabeth II’s private secretary, gave Harry a ‘draft options paper’ outlining that the ‘level of protection is a decision for the Home Secretary, delegated to the chair’ of Ravec.

The paper set out how the process worked – and Harry’s own private secretary Fiona Mcilwham then met with Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, saying in an email that she ‘faithfully relayed the details you provided on security… to the Duke’, according to the court papers.

The judge said there was ‘no substance in the contention that the defendant failed to act in a procedurally fair manner’.

He added: ‘In particular, there was no reason to assume that the claimant’s private secretary was unaware of the security issues arising as a result of the claimant’s [redacted text].’

The judge also said that ‘On the contrary, the evidence shows that she was entirely conversant with them’ following a meeting on January 27, 2020 with Sir Edward, Ravec chair Sir Richard Mottram and Prince William’s private sectary Simon Case.

Sir Peter added: ‘If there had been the need for any questions to be asked about ‘Ravec, Ms Mcilwham can be expected to have asked them.

‘I do not accept that the fact she may have been private secretary for some six months has any bearing. Her communications are indicative of someone with a good grasp of her job.’

The judge said he accepted comments from Sir Richard, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry’s legal arguments in February 2020, ‘I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons’.

In addition, Sir Peter criticised Harry’s claim of the ‘alleged irrationality’ of him having to give 28 days’ notice of travelling to Britain.

Earlier this month Harry told ABC show GMA that he had ‘considered’ becoming a US citizen

The judge said: ‘There is no merit in this contention. It arose from the need to be able to address a [redacted] of the kind belatedly given by the claimant to Ravec in relation to the June/July 2021 visit.

‘Given Ravec’s expertise, the decision to require 28 days’ notice would need to be shown, by reference to evidence, to have been plucked out of the air or imposed for some extraneous reason, before this head of challenge could be made out. The claimant has pointed to nothing of the kind.’

Responding to the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said on Wednesday: ‘We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further.

‘The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.

‘It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.’

Sir Peter – who officially retired as a High Court judge on February 1 – said his ruling contained redactions because if such information was made public it would have ‘a serious adverse impact on the individuals concerned, as well as being contrary to the public interest, including that of national security’.

In December, the Duke’s lawyers told the court that a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a ‘successful attack’ on him meant the approach to his protection was ‘unlawful and unfair’.

William, Harry, Meghan and Charles speak together at a service at Westminster Abbey in March 2019 – the year before the Sussexes stepped down as senior royals and moved to the US

The court was also told that Harry believes his children – Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet – cannot ‘feel at home’ in the UK if it is ‘not possible to keep them safe’ there.

But Home Office lawyers said the Duke was no longer a member of the group of people whose ‘security position’ was under regular review by Ravec, but he was ‘brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances’.

The court was told that it was ‘simply incorrect’ to suggest that there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales – Harry’s mother – was raised as part of the decision.

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.

The majority of the proceedings in December were held in private, without the public or press present, because of confidential evidence over security measures being involved in the case.

Prince Andrew leads members of the Royal Family to St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle yesterday to attend a thanksgiving service for the life of the late King Constantine of Greece

Queen Camilla is seen at St George’s Chapel yesterday as she attends the thanksgiving service

The security case was one of three remaining live High Court cases brought by the Duke, alongside claims over allegations of unlawful information gathering against News Group Newspapers (NGN) and Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publisher of MailOnline.

Earlier this month, Harry settled the remaining parts of his phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers.

It came after the Duke decided in January to withdraw a libel claim against ANL over a February 2022 Mail on Sunday article about his legal challenge against the Home Office.

Harry, who was not present at the December hearing, lives in North America with wife Meghan and their children after the couple announced they were stepping back as senior royals in January 2020.

He returned briefly to the UK on February 6 without his family after making a transatlantic dash to be with his father following the shock news of the King’s cancer diagnosis.

Earlier this month Harry revealed in an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America (GMA) that he had ‘considered’ becoming a US citizen since moving to California.

He added that his ‘family and my life in California is as it is’, but also told how he had ‘got other trips planned that would take me through the UK or back to the UK’. The Duke also said: ‘I will stop in and see my family as much as I can.’