Prince Harry was today ordered to repay taxpayers after losing his High Court battle against the Home Office for downgrading his police protection.
He potentially faces a bill of around £1million when his own legal costs are taken into account.
A judge has rejected a bid to halve the amount he had to pay, saying the Duke of Sussex had “completely lost” his case.
Separately, Sir Peter Lane also rejected the Duke’s appeal against the decision, calling part of it “frankly desperate”.
Harry, who has already committed to appealing the case, can still go directly to the Court of Appeal if he wishes to pursue the case.
The two decisions represent another legal blow for the Duke after he lost his two-year battle at the Home Office in February.
Prince Harry (pictured at the High Court last June) was today ordered to repay taxpayers after losing his High Court battle against the Home Office for downgrading his police protection.
Harry had taken the Home Office to court for no longer receiving the “same degree” of protection after he and Meghan left royal life and Britain in January 2020.
He had compared the dangers to him and his family to the risks his mother, Princess Diana, faced before her death in 1997 while being chased by paparazzi.
The Home Office spent more than £500,000 of public money to successfully fight the case. After his defeat, Harry’s lawyers argued in written arguments that he should not have to bear more than half of the public’s legal costs.
But Sir Peter ruled: “I have no doubt that the claimant’s argument that his liability for costs should be subject to a reduction of 50 to 60 per cent is untenable.” He added “for the avoidance of doubt” that the Duke’s suggestion that his case had been “partially successful” was “baseless”.
The judge agreed with Harry’s lawyers that the Home Office had committed some breaches of legal rules, but said this “does not change the fact that the claimant has completely lost”.
Sir Peter ordered the Duke to pay 90 per cent of the public’s legal costs. The exact amount was not specified.
But figures released a few weeks ago via a Freedom of Information request revealed the government has so far spent £514,128, including more than £180,000 on lawyers, £320,000 on department lawyers government legal and £2,300 in court costs.
Harry’s legal fees have not been revealed, but could be similar.
Prince Harry, right, and his wife Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, arrive for the Royal Salute Polo Challenge 2024 in aid of Sentebale, April 12, 2024.
The judge also refused Harry’s request for permission to appeal, saying his request was “largely a recapitulation” of the trial he had already lost.
He said there was “no compelling reason” to allow an appeal. Sir Peter said that just because the case was about “protection of life” did not give Harry a compelling reason, because otherwise “there would be a large number” of appeals to the immigration courts under of the Refugee Convention.
Following the previous ruling in February, a spokesperson for the Duke said he intended to challenge the judgment, adding that Harry “hopes he will get justice from the Court of Appeal.”
Prince Harry continues to insist that the withdrawal of guaranteed police protection leaves him vulnerable during his visit to the UK.
It is required to give 30 days notice of any travel plans so that each visit can be evaluated on its merits. Sources close to him have reportedly said he is not willing to return with Meghan or their children without the level of security he feels he needs.
Harry got a 10 percent reduction on his legal fees after the judge penalized the government for delaying providing key documents about Ravec’s operation.
Sources close to him have reportedly said he is not willing to return with Meghan or their children without the level of security he feels he needs. Pictured: Harry and Meghan at a polo event on Friday
Ravec is the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, which reports to the Ministry of the Interior and oversees security arrangements for the royal family and other public figures.
Sir Peter said the Home Office had not acted in bad faith but its failure to provide the information to the Duke was “sanctionable”.
However, the judge ruled that it was “frankly desperate” on the part of Harry’s lawyers to suggest that the court “should not show ‘deference’ to Ravec’s decision because the subject involved the protection of an individual.”
The Home Office said: “While we are satisfied with the Court’s decision to refuse permission to appeal, it would be inappropriate to comment further on ongoing legal proceedings.”
dailymail us
