Prince Harry's request to appeal a High Court decision regarding his UK police protection was denied, marking a continued struggle in his quest for security assurances upon his visits to Britain. The decision intensifies the Duke of Sussex's ongoing legal challenge against the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which determined he would not receive the same level of publicly-funded protection after stepping back from royal duties.

The legal battle, which has been unfolding over several years, began after Ravec's February 2020 ruling that Harry's change in status as a non-working member of the royal family justified a reduction in his security detail. This decision was upheld in February by retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane, who dismissed Harry's claim that the decision was irrational or procedurally unfair. Sir Peter also concluded that Harry was not "singled out" unfairly by the decision.

Despite the legal hurdles, a spokesperson for Harry expressed determination, stating that the Duke "hopes to obtain justice from the Court of Appeal." Harry now has the option to seek permission directly from the Court of Appeal to challenge Sir Peter's ruling.

Compounding Harry's legal woes, Sir Peter ordered that Harry should bear 90 percent of the Home Office’s legal costs from the case. The judge acknowledged that while the government department had committed procedural breaches during the battle, these were not sufficient to merit a significant reduction in costs against Harry.

In his ruling, Sir Peter critiqued the arguments from Harry’s legal team regarding cost reductions, stating, "The fact that the court did not accept each and every submission of the defendant as to the path to take towards dismissal of the claim does not alter the fact that the claimant comprehensively lost."

Throughout the legal proceedings, Harry's attorneys argued that the failure to conduct a thorough risk analysis or to consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him rendered the approach to his protection "unlawful and unfair." They also stressed Harry's heightened security needs due to his high public profile and past experiences.

The government has countered that Ravec's decision was justifiable, arguing that Harry's security could be tailored on a "case-by-case" basis. They asserted that Harry was not excluded from receiving security but that his coverage needed to be adaptable to specific circumstances.

Harry himself has voiced deep personal concerns over the safety of his family, stating in a written submission, "It was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020. The UK is my home and central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home... That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil."

As Prince Harry prepares for his potential appeal, the outcome of this case continues to hold significant personal and public interest, testing the boundaries of security provisions for royals who step back from their traditional roles. The legal journey underscores the complexities and challenges of adapting traditional royal protocols to modern personal decisions.