The Home Office has commissioned a fresh risk assessment of the Duke of Sussex’s security for visits to the UK, to be conducted through the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC). Ministers will not participate in the determination, and media reports indicate an outcome could be issued in January 2026.
RAVEC has asked its Risk Management Board to undertake a new threat review-the first full reassessment since 2020-drawing on evidence from policing bodies, the Home Office and representatives for the duke. Both the government and the duke’s office have declined to discuss operational detail for safety reasons.
Under arrangements introduced in February 2020, the duke does not receive automatic taxpayer‑funded armed police protection. Instead, he must provide around 30 days’ notice of any trip and protection is decided case by case under what the courts termed a ‘bespoke’ approach.
The legal position was set in two stages. In February 2024 the High Court dismissed his judicial review, finding the RAVEC process lawful and not procedurally unfair; permission to appeal was then granted. On 2 May 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge, endorsing RAVEC’s reasoning, including that he moves in and out of the protected cohort depending on whether he is in the UK.
A separate strand-whether he could privately fund specialist police protection-was closed in May 2023 when the High Court refused permission for a judicial review. Mr Justice Chamberlain accepted that these duties involve a limited pool of highly trained officers whose deployment should not be available for private purchase, distinguishing such protection from paid policing for events under section 25 of the Police Act 1996.
The government’s public line has not shifted: it describes the protective security system as ‘rigorous and proportionate’ and maintains a long‑standing policy of not commenting on individual arrangements.
The current review will test whether updated threat intelligence and risk factors justify placing the duke back into RAVEC’s automatic protection cohort for UK stays. If the committee maintains the status quo, visits will continue to be assessed individually under the bespoke route; if not, the advance‑notice requirement would likely fall away.
For officials and event organisers, the planning assumption remains a minimum 30‑day notification to the Metropolitan Police, with outcomes varying by exposure and context. Shifting to automatic protection would simplify coordination but would also draw on scarce specialist resources identified by the courts.
The reassessment follows correspondence sent by the duke to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood in October seeking a fresh appraisal; RAVEC’s process is running independently of ministerial direction. A decision is expected next month, though the Home Office has not confirmed a timetable. Until any formal update is issued, current arrangements remain in force.