The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the royal family taking legal action against the Government.
Figures released via a Freedom of Information request reveal that the total cost of fighting two separate judicial review claims lodged by the Duke of Sussex over his security reached £514,128 ($1,083,915).
That included more than £180,000 ($379,487) for counsel, £320,000 ($674,643) for the Government Legal Department, £2300 ($4849) in court fees and almost £10,000 ($21,083) in e-disclosure.
Mr Justice Lane dismissed the Duke’s case in a scathing 52-page ruling handed down in February after two and a half years of legal wrangling.
He ruled that the decision made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) to withdraw state-funded security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they stepped back as working royals and instead review it on a case-by-case basis whenever they return to the UK had not been irrational or procedurally unfair.
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend a service marking the centenary of the WW1 armistice at Westminster Abbey in 2018 in London, England. Photo / Getty Images
He also rejected the Duke’s “inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the process and said that taxpayer-funded security should not be used to protect the Duke and Duchess from paparazzi.
The ruling left the Duke facing an estimated legal bill of more than £1 million ($2.11 million).
Undeterred, he has announced that he plans to appeal the ruling, meaning that the costs are likely to rise further.
Last May, the Duke was denied the right to bring a second legal challenge, based on his offer to pay for his own protection, which he argued should have prompted the Home Office to “quash and retake” its decision.
Prince Harry continues to insist that the withdrawal of guaranteed police protection renders him vulnerable when visiting the UK. He is required to give 30 days notice of any travel plans so each visit can be assessed on its merits.
Sources close to him say he is unwilling to return with Meghan or their children without the level of security he feels he needs.
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, on the Long Walk at Windsor Castle arrive to view flowers and tributes to HM Queen Elizabeth on September 10, 2022 in Windsor, England. Photo / Getty Images
‘Unlawful and unfair treatment’
When the Duke was told of the decision to remove his right to taxpayer-funded police protection in early 2020, he was furious, demanding to be given the names of those responsible.
In an email sent to Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet secretary at the time, he insisted that he be told who had put him in a position of such vulnerability and risk.
The Duke applied for a judicial review in September 2021, shortly after a visit to the UK when he joined his brother, Prince William, to unveil a statue of their late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and attended a WellChild charity event, when he felt his security was compromised.
His legal challenge was based on an alleged lack of transparency about Ravec’s composition and processes. He argued that he had been denied a “clear and full explanation” of the composition of the committee, which includes senior members of the Royal household, and how it operates.
The Duke also argued that he had been “singled out” and treated “less favourably” than others by Ravec, which had subjected him to “unlawful and unfair treatment”.
Prince Harry is pursuing separate legal actions against News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun and the now defunct News of the World and Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail.
In January, it emerged that the Duke faced an estimated legal bill of £750,000 ($1,581,195) after abandoning a libel claim against the Mail on Sunday concerning an article about his demand for taxpayer-funded security.
The following month, he accepted “substantial” damages to end his four-year legal battle with Mirror Group Newspapers rather than pursue a second phone hacking trial.
