The decision to strip Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of their police bodyguards should be reviewed because “it’s still very difficult to make an argument against,” a private security expert told Newsweek.
The Duke of Sussex has been fighting for four years to overturn the 2020 decision to remove his family’s round-the-clock police protection team, taken as he was quitting the monarchy.
He has twice sued the British government over the move, lodging a third bid at the Court of Appeal after he lost both cases. He argues that Britain is not safe for himself, Meghan, and their two children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, without armed officers guarding them.
However, the original decision was made under a Conservative Party Home Secretary, and the Labour Party has since come to power after winning a landslide victory on July 4.
Alex Bomberg, chief executive of private security firm Intelligent Protection International, told Newsweek that now was a good time to review the original decision.
“I’m an advocate for him getting police protection,” Bomberg said. “I think it’s something that should be reviewed.
“Has the risk level changed? No, probably not. But could they reconsider it? Should they reconsider it? Potentially yes,” he said.
“I still think he’s been hard done by. Whichever way you want to look at it, he’s still who he is. He’s still born into the royal family.
“In my view, it’s still very difficult to make an argument against. He’s not a working royal—well, the threat doesn’t really go away.”
A spokesperson for the United Kingdom government told Newsweek: “The UK 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.”
The decision was taken by RAVEC, a Home Office committee responsible for deciding who gets police protection but a senior official also argued in evidence before the court that the appetite for risk among politicians was a key factor.
Harry originally had a police team because of his working royal status, and he lost his bodyguards when he gave up that role.
However, he has argued he should still be granted protection on the basis of the threat level against him, as is the case for some public figures like Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses, who had a fatwa issued against him by Iran.
Top counterterrorism chief Shaun Hipgrave told the High Court in one of Harry’s cases that the decision on who receives protection based on risk rather than role was substantially dependent on government ministers.
Judge Peter Lane wrote in his judgment that Hipgrave had argued inclusion in this category was “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.”
Therefore, it is hypothetically possible that a new Labour Home Secretary might take a different view on how much risk was justifiable—though there is currently no sign they will.
Home Office lawyers condemned Harry’s lawsuit for wasting public money during the case. Newsweek understands those concerns about the cost of defending the claim remain.
However, Prince Harry has argued through his court cases that the British government failed to consider the possible impact on the U.K.’s reputation internationally if there was a successful terror attack on the duke, Meghan, and their children.
Bomberg, a former British Army soldier who was later a Kensington Palace aide to Queen Elizabeth II’s cousin, said, “Potentially, he could have such a large case against the government.
“It’s the embarrassment factor as well. What would it really take for them to provide security?”
“This is someone who is a senior member of the royal family,” he continued. “The fact that they’re not actually working is neither here nor there.”
