Prince Harry could get a renewed chance to lobby the British government for the return of his police protection team, as the opposition Labour Party is expected to win by a landslide in next month’s general election.

The Duke of Sussex has twice sued the British Home Office over the decision to strip him of his police bodyguards, but he lost both times and has taken his quest to the Court of Appeal.

However, the court’s Judge David Bean has hinted he will take some convincing, suggesting that the “carefully reasoned judgment” dismissing Harry’s case at the High Court “may prove to be correct in all respects.”

Bean agreed “not without hesitation” to hear Harry’s case on two very similar points, but if Harry cannot persuade the Court of Appeal, he may need another plan.

The prince has said he considers Britain too dangerous for him to visit with and their children, and , without armed police officers protecting the family.

However, he may get one more throw of the dice after the general election on July 4, when the polls are predicting the Conservatives will be handily defeated by the Labour Party.

A new home secretary could make a difference, for subtle reasons buried in the fine detail of the judgment in the original case that Harry lost.

Harry’s Lawsuit

Harry lost his Metropolitan Police bodyguards when he quit his royal duties because most people offered such security have it on the basis of a role they perform and the prince had resigned from his palace role.

A small number, referred to in court as the “Other VIP Category,” get protection for other reasons. One example is controversial author Salman Rushdie, whose book The Satanic Verses prompted a fatwa, or decree, from Iran that ordered his death for allegedly blaspheming Islam.

Harry argued in court that he should have been moved from the role-based category to the “Other VIPs Category.” While some aspects of the paperwork have been redacted for security reasons, he has made it clear he believes he and Meghan were at risk from the racist far right as well as Islamist militants who opposed his military service in Afghanistan.

However, the High Court also heard from a top counterterrorism chief, Shaun Hipgrave, the director of Protect and Prepare in the Homeland Security Group of the U.K. Home Office.

Judge Peter Lane explained in his judgment: “The Other VIP Category comprises a smaller number of individuals.”

He continued: “They are included within the RAVEC cohort because of the facts peculiar to each individual. The Other VIP Category is, Mr Hipgrave says, 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.”

Impact of July’s General Election

In other words, the government might decide that the risk of a terrorist attack against , Meghan and their children on U.K. soil is not worth the cost of reinstating his police team.

Up until now, the matter has been considered only under a Conservative government, but the current prime minister, , is on course for a major defeat to Labour leader Keir Starmer.

What’s more, the center-left leader is projected in some polling to win so big that the current Conservative Party could slip into third place overall, giving Starmer free rein to govern as he sees fit.

The issue of Harry’s police security is likely nowhere near the forefront of Labour’s thinking as it continues campaigning with less than a month to go.

But on the other side of the election, Harry could consider a more subtle attempt to persuade his way to victory behind the scenes, regardless of the outcome of his appeal.

Impact of U.K. Public Opinion

The woman who would hold Harry’s fate in her hands would be Yvette Cooper, who will be Labour’s home secretary if the party wins the election.

Still, U.K. public opinion will likely not count in Harry’s favor, as he is currently disliked by 58 percent of the country, according to a YouGov poll in April. He was liked by just 33 percent, giving him a net approval rating of -25.

Meghan fared even worse, with 62 percent viewing her negatively and 27 percent viewing her positively.

With Labour pitching itself at a broad cross-section of mainstream Britain, Harry would therefore struggle to get a policy U-turn that is popular with the electorate.

However, the government would not necessarily need to announce that it had changed its stance since its policy is to not discuss individual security arrangements.

Hipgrave’s account suggests the predominant reason for reversing the decision would be less about supporting Harry as an individual and more about protecting the government from reputational damage should the unthinkable happen and a terrorist target the Sussexes.

Either way, if it was worth filing not one but two lawsuits and an appeal, Harry would surely think it is worth having a go at persuading the new home secretary.

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Regalrumination.com, based in London. You can find him on X (formerly ) at and read his stories on Regalrumination.com‘s

Do you have a question about Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email Support@regalrumination.com. We’d love to hear from you.