Prince Harry wins major victory in battle for taxpayer-funded security

By Victoria Ward

The Duke of Sussex has won a full security risk assessment following a major U-turn by the Home Office.

Prince Harry brought a high profile legal claim against the Government over the decision to remove his right to automatic taxpayer funded security.

He lost the legal battle in May, blaming an "establishment stitch up". The Court of Appeal declared that a grievance did not equate to a valid legal argument.

However, the Duke, who insists it is not safe to bring his wife, Meghan, or their two children, Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four, to the UK, pursued the matter behind closed doors.

The Telegraph revealed in October that he had written privately to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, urging her to rethink the approach to his security.

The Duke is understood to have been told on Friday that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) – the Home Office committee responsible for such decisions – had changed tack and had instructed its Risk Management Board (RMB) to reassess his threat level for the first time in nearly six years.

READ MORE: Meghan attempting to contact dad as he pleads 'I don't want to die estranged'

READ MORE: Australia's favourite biscuit for 2025 has been revealed

READ MORE: Why royal fans can't get over this photo of Princess Charlotte

The board will now collate evidence from the police, the Government and Harry's team, with its findings expected to be presented to Ravec next month, according to The Sun.

It could pave the way for the Duke to return to the UK with his children for the first time since 2022.

The Duke has not been given a full risk assessment since April 2019. Then, he was deemed such a target that he was put in the highest category – level seven out of seven.

The only two people at a similar risk at that time were the monarch, Elizabeth II, and the Prime Minister, then Theresa May.

He has long argued that a new risk analysis was imperative to ensure that any security decisions made by Ravec were based on the current threat.

He argued in court that by denying him a risk assessment, he had been "singled out" for "inferior treatment" and that Ravec had not followed its own rules.

Ever since quitting royal duties to move abroad, the Duke has been required to give 30 days notice of any UK visit so each could be assessed on its merits.

The "bespoke" arrangement has so far resulted in him receiving minimal or no police protection the vast majority of the time.

Instead of the armed close protection he received as a working royal, he has been assigned a liaison officer to contact if anything were to go awry – a role police sources admitted was a "suit in an office" who is not security vetted.

The High Court recognised that any renewed risk analysis would be "very likely" to confirm the threat levels faced by the Duke in 2019.

Several people have been jailed for either plotting to kill Prince Harry, encouraging attacks on him, threatening or plotting to kill him.

It is understood that there are three Britons at large who have been jailed and released after plotting to cause him harm.

Neil Basu, the former head of the UK's Counter Terrorism unit, who held various positions on Ravec between 2018 and 2021, told the Telegraph in October that it was a "mistake" not to again formally assess the threat faced by the Duke and that as a result, he had been left exposed.

He said he did not believe the Duke's risk profile had changed before he retired from frontline policing in 2022. In fact, he acknowledged, it had almost certainly increased.

"The most common nature of threat to a member of the Royal family has been fixated individuals," Mr Basu said.

"There's even a specialist team set up within New Scotland Yard to deal with fixated threat assessments, because there were so many – normally the head of state, by a country mile, more than anybody else, but nevertheless, certainly other members of the royal family. And it is the hardest thing to guard against.

"The only way of stopping those kinds of people is to be close to the principal and to smother them if they get approached. I wasn't aware that that happened, but that should underline immediately how high risk he is when he's here."

© Telegraph Media Group Limited 2025