Britain's new government has given its first comment on Prince Harry's long-running attempt to get his police protection re-instated in a statement to Newsweek.
The Duke of Sussex was stripped of his Metropolitan Police bodyguards in 2020 as he was quitting royal duties before launching a lawsuit against the British home secretary.
At the time, the post was held by successive Conservative Party politicians but the Tories lost the July 4 general election meaning that Prince Harry has his first opportunity to persuade the progressive Labour Party to change policy.
A government spokesperson told Newsweek: "The U.K. 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.
"It would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing legal proceedings."
While the statement gives no account of what police protection Harry receives, the Home Office does not sound minded to shift its stance, instead defending the processes that gave rise to the original policy.
Prince Harry has twice sued over the downgrading of his security and lost both cases but is pursuing an appeal.
Decisions on who gets police protection are taken on behalf of the government by RAVEC, a committee of the Home Office that also includes police and royal aides.
However, top counterterrorism chief Shaun Hipgrave revealed in evidence to one of Prince Harry's lawsuits at the High Court that the government's own tolerance for risk can be a key factor.
The duke had originally been given a round-the-clock police team due to his role within the royal family but the armed officers were withdrawn after he quit because he no longer held that role.
Ever since, he has argued he should continue to receive police bodyguards not due to his role but due to the threat level.
Some public figures, such as Salman Rushdie, do receive police bodyguards due to the level of risk and it is this category that is determined based on the attitudes of government ministers.
Judge Peter Lane summarized Hipgrave's evidence as suggesting arrangements for these "Other VIPs" were "ultimately determined by reference to the Government's risk appetite; that is to say, the level of exposure to risk that is considered tolerable and justifiable by Ministers."
That raised the prospect that a new set of ministers led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper might reach a different conclusion.
It is, however, also possible that they will simply stand by RAVEC's original decision, through which a decision on police security is made each time Harry, Meghan and their children visit the U.K. with no guarantee a team will be provided.
Home Office lawyers expressed major concerns during Prince Harry's lawsuits about the cost to the public of defending the cases and Newsweek understands those concerns persist.
Robert Palmer, attorney for the government, told the High Court in 2022 that fighting the case required an "unprecedented expenditure of time and resources."
Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
