Prince Harry will find out whether he has won a Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements on Friday, according to court listings.
The Duke of Sussex, who attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice last month, is appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK.
The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and is one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.
So what is the case about, what has happened in the courts so far and what’s happening now?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:39
Moment Prince Harry arrives at Court of Appeal
What is the dispute over?
Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghanin March 2020.
Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.
But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.
He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.
Image: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Canada in February. Pic: Aaron Chown/PA Wire
The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.
“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.
“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.
“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”
What happened in the Court of Appeal?
At a two-day hearing in April, lawyers for the duke said he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety, security and life are “at stake”.
Shaheed Fatima KC told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back” from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.
After Ravec’s decision, al Qaeda called for Harry “to be murdered”, and his security team was informed that the terrorist group had published a document which said his “assassination would please the Muslim community”, Ms Fatima added.
She also said that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process'”.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that Harry’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.
He said Ravec treats the duke in a “bespoke manner”, which was “better suited” to his circumstances.
Harry “is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec,” Sir James said, adding: “Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.”
What’s happened in court before then?
The duke filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.
At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.
In written submissions, he said: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it.”
He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.
The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”
The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.
Image: The Duke leaving a service at St Paul’s Cathedral in London in May 2024. Pic: AP
He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.
The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.
“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”
Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “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.
After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “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.”
Prince eventually gets green light to appeal against High Court ruling
It’s quite simply a political earthquake. Across England, Reform proved it can translate positive polling into real power, picking up another parliamentary seat, a mayoralty, Staffordshire and Lincolnshire councils and dozens of seats by lunchtime. The popularity surge for this anti-establishment party is real.
Look at the votes: Reform doubling its vote share in Runcorn against the general election to 38%, clocking up 42% of the vote in the Lincolnshire mayoral race and 32% in the Doncaster mayoral race, running Labour very close. By lunchtime, Reform had taken the long-held Staffordshire council from the Tories, wiping out their five-strong majority.
The significance of these wins, added in with the big gains for the Lib Dems and Greens, cannot be overstated. It speaks in a serious way to a new era of politics in the UK, in which the decades-long duopoly of Labour versus Conservative is crumbling with the rise of the other parties.
The trend was evident in the 2024 general election, when the two main parties got their lowest ever vote share. Labour’s clever targeting of seats ensured that it won a massive majority on just 34% of the popular vote. The Lib Dems won a record 70 seats, while Reform picked up five MPs and came second in 98 constituencies.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:47
Farage: ‘This is Reform-quake’
If that was a loveless landslide, this is the break-up, as voters, who backed Labour’s change message, seem to be pressing the change button again and turning out for a leader who is tapping into voters’ disillusionment with his slogan that “Britain is broken and needs Reform”.
For the government to lose a by-election just 10 months after winning a massive landslide is a terrible moment for Labour. It won this seat with 53% of the vote in July, against Reform polling at 18%. To end up losing it – albeit by just six votes – is a dreadful verdict from voters here on their early performance.
Those around the PM admit it is deeply frustrating but say they expected a kicking from an angry electorate impatient for change. They are taking crumbs of comfort in, just about, holding the mayoralties of Doncaster, North Tyneside and West of England.
But in early council results, the drop in the Labour vote is big, and that raises questions as to whether Starmer’s party will struggle to hold constituencies it gained in the July election, such as Hexham in Northumberland.
The approach from No 10 is to “keep calm and carry on” with its government agenda – the immigration white paper, defence review, infrastructure strategy – to deliver for the public and win back the support they had in the last general election in time for the next.
Image: Nigel Farage holds up six fingers to indicate the six votes his party’s candidate won by in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Pic: Reuters
For the Conservatives, it’s been – to quote one political rival – a “story of Tory councillors getting machine gunned”. In Staffordshire, where Farage did his final rally, Reform have taken a council where the Tories had a 50-strong majority.
The party has been absolutely hammered by Reform in the Tory heartlands of Lincolnshire, where Dame Andrea Jenkyns won the Greater Lincolnshire mayoralty by 40,000 votes. In the general election, the Conservatives held six of the eight parliamentary seats in this county, on Friday Jenkyns beat the Tories in eight out of the nine areas.
Those around Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch are trying to steady nerves, arguing that these results are disappointing but not surprising in the context of the party’s worst-ever election defeat in 2024, with the party “under new leadership” and “still in the early stages of a long-term plan to renew”.
Others are panicked and angry. “This is what political extinction looks like,” one senior Tory source told me, in a sign that questions over Badenoch’s leadership are only going to build.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:43
How significant are Reform’s wins?
There are many results still to come in, but what these elections are pointing to is the rise of multi-party politics with voting spread across three or four parties in many of the races and the two main parties rapidly losing ground.
It ties into the longer run trends in our voting, leaning towards more parties and less tribalism amongst voters, as the electorate shift loyalties, and frustration with Labour and the Tories fuels support for the alternatives.
Reform’s success in Runcorn and Durham, as well as Staffordshire and Lincolnshire, shows that Farage poses a significant threat to the two main parties. Add in the Lib Dems, challenging the Tories in their blue wall shires on the centre right, and what we see emerging is a party system where the two governing parties are no longer dominant.
These elections then, while relatively small, are profoundly consequential for our political system. Where we go next is hugely unclear. Much will rest on whether Labour can deliver on its promises and dull Farage’s drumbeat of change.
Image: Reform promised to fix ‘broken’ councils. Pic: PA
Reform’s challenge will be to prove that it can govern and sustain the additional scrutiny that being in office entails.
The Conservatives are in the most desperate place of all, squeezed by Reform on the right flank and the Lib Dems on the left. But what is clearer after today is that the political earthquake Farage has long promised is now shaking our political system in a perhaps epochal way.
The Reform leader has long been saying he is this country’s next prime minister. Looking at the way he and his party have translated poll leads into real power means that prospect is no longer a pipe dream.
One of two men on trial for cutting down the Sycamore Gap tree told a court his co-defendant had wanted to cut down the “most famous tree in the world”.
Daniel Graham, 39, said Adam Carruthers, 32, rang him the morning after to claim responsibility for felling the tree beside Hadrian’s Wall.
He said Carruthers had asked him to take the blame “because he had mental health issues”, believing he would be treated more leniently.
The prosecution allege that Graham and Carruthers drove from Carlisle to the Northumberland landmark in September 2023 during Storm Agnes.
Both men deny two counts of criminal damage to the sycamore and to the Roman Wall.
Image: Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers. Pic: CPS/PA
On the fourth day of the trial, Graham was asked about a call Carruthers made to him on the morning of 28 September 2023.
“It was Adam claiming he had cut down the Sycamore Gap tree, claiming that it was him that cut it down,” he said.
More on Northumberland
Related Topics:
“I told him he was talking shite, I didn’t believe it.”
While Graham said his former friend had spoken of wanting to cut down the tree in the past, he “didn’t take it seriously”.
“At the time I didn’t know of the tree … He told me it was the most famous tree in the world.”
He told Newcastle Crown Court that he remembered Carruthers ordering a chainsaw and saying it was big enough to cover the Sycamore Gap’s circumference.
Image: Adam Carruthers. Pic: CPS/PA
Defence barrister Chris Knox said two people had been involved on the night in question, one feling the tree and the other filming.
But while Graham said that Carruthers felled the tree, he “[didn’t] know 100% who the other person was”.
Speaking from the witness box, Graham said he was not the one using his Range Rover or mobile phone on the night the tree was cut down, which were both traced to the tree’s location.
At the time, the pair were the “best of pals”, according to Graham.
When questioned by Mr Knox on whether Carruthers had asked to borrow his Range Rover, he added: “Adam wouldn’t need to ask to borrow anything of mine. He was welcome to it.”
Jurors have been told that an anonymous call was made to the emergency services on 23 August last year, by a man believed to be Graham, in which Carruthers was named as being responsible for felling the Sycamore Gap.
Russell Brand has been granted bail after appearing in court charged with sexual offences including rape.
During the brief hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the 49-year-old spoke only to confirm his name, date of birth, and address, also confirming to the judge that he understood his bail conditions.
Image: Russell Brand outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Pic: Reuters
Brand, who has been living in the US, was charged by post last month with one count each of rape, indecent assault and oral rape – as well as two counts of sexual assault – in connection with incidents involving four separate women between 1999 and 2005.
The allegations were first made in a joint investigation by The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4 Dispatches in September 2023.
Image: The comedian and actor did not say anything as he entered the court
The comedian, actor and author has denied the accusations and said he has “never engaged in non-consensual activity”.
Appearing before Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, Brand stood to confirm his name and address. He then sat down while the charges were read to the court.
Image: Brand surrounded by media. Pic: Reuters
Brand is charged with the rape of a woman in 1999 in the Bournemouth area. She alleges that after meeting Brand at a theatrical performance and chatting to him later in her hotel room, she returned from the toilet to find he’d removed some of his clothes. She claims he asked her to take photos of him, and then raped her.
The court also heard of another of Brand’s alleged victims, who has accused him of indecently assaulting her in 2001 by “grabbing her arm and dragging her towards a male toilet” at a TV station.
Brand is accused of the oral rape and sexual assault of a woman he met in 2004 in London. He is accused of grabbing her breasts before allegedly pulling her into a toilet.
The final complainant is a radio worker who has accused Brand of sexually assaulting her between 2004 and 2005 by “kissing” and “grabbing” her breasts and buttocks.
Image: Brand leaves court. Pic: Reuters
The judge referred the case up to the Central Criminal Court – informally known as the Old Bailey.
Brand was asked to supply both his US and UK addresses to the court.
When asked if he understood his bail conditions, he replied, “Yes”.
The case was adjourned and Brand, of Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, was told he must appear at the Old Bailey on 30 May.