Top News

failed legal challenge over police protection has cost the Home Office an eye-watering £656,324, as new Freedom of Information figures reveal the Home Office's spending on the case, which Prince Harry ultimately lost.

However, as the losing party, the Duke is expected to reimburse most or all of the government's costs, following a previous ruling that he should repay 90 per cent of public expenses. Therefore, the Duke of Sussex faces a when his own legal fees are included, as reported by the .

The breakdown of government spending shows £554,000 was incurred during the original High Court case a year ago, and the subsequent appeal cost £102,000.

included more than £241,000 on barristers, £394,000 on solicitors, and £3,800 in court fees, however, Harry's own exact legal costs remain undisclosed.

The Home Office has warned "further costs" could be calculated,for example, costs before May 2 "that have not been captured".

The Court of Appeal's ruling on May 2 proved particularly damning, with Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos acknowledging that whilst Harry's arguments were "powerful and moving" and it was "plain the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system", this "sense of grievance" did not "translate into a legal argument".

Sir Geoffrey, sitting alongside two other judges, determined that the original security decision had been a "predictable" and "sensible" reaction to Megxit.

The decision was a blow to Harry's efforts to retain police protection for himself and his family when in the UK.

Following the appeal's dismissal, Harry told the BBC that "I wish someone had told me beforehand" there was "no way to win".

The Prince said: "I can't see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point."

Harry also spoke of King Charles and said the King "won't speak to me because of this security stuff", but that he did not want to fight any more and did "not know how much longer my father has".

In a rare move, rebuking Prince Harry's claims: "All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion."