US authorities have concluded there is enough evidence to arrest two people for "reckless endangerment" after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said they experienced a "near-catastrophic" car chase in New York involving paparazzi, a court has heard.
Details of a review of the incident last May were revealed during a High Court ruling in London over Prince Harry's challenge to a decision to change the level of his taxpayer-funded, personal security when visiting the UK.
Retired High Court judge Peter Lane dismissed the duke's case against the Home Office, with his judgment referring to evidence submitted over what happened in New York.
The judge’s ruling featured a redacted version of a 6 December 2023 letter, provided to him by the prince’s barrister, from the chief of intelligence in the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to the chief superintendent of royalty and speciality protection.
Mr Lane said that "contrary to what appears to have entered the public domain", the letter states that "reckless endangerment did take place on 16 May 2023" when Harry and Meghan were being driven in Manhattan.
In the letter, the chief of intelligence says he wants to make "aware of certain changes to the security posture that will be afforded to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in light of the security incident that took place on May 16 2023 in New York City".
According to the judge, the letter says that "a thorough review of the incident had taken place and although no formal charges were brought against the parties involved at the time we did conclude that the behaviour in question was reckless".
The judge said the investigation "found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question".
"They had operated vehicles, scooters and bicycles in a manner that forced the security team, which included the NYPD lead car, to take evasive actions on several occasions and a circuitous route to avoid being struck by pursuing vehicles or trapped on side blocks."
He said "the conclusion was that there was sufficient evidence to arrest two individuals for reckless endangerment".
A spokesperson for the duke and duchess previously said they were followed by paparazzi after attending an awards ceremony with the duchess’s mother, Doria Ragland.
The three of them are said to have been subjected to a "relentless pursuit" involving half a dozen blacked out vehicles, described as "a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi".
It was understood at the time that Harry, Meghan and Ms Ragland were staying at a private residence and did not want to compromise the security of their friend’s home.
It was also thought that the couple believe the pursuit could have been fatal, with the incident said to have featured traffic violations including driving on the pavement and through red lights, reversing down a one-way street, illegally blocking a moving vehicle and driving while photographing and while on the phone.
A taxi driver who said he transported the couple for part of the journey said the dangers may have been "exaggerated".
At the time of the incident, the NYPD, which deployed officers to help escort the duke and duchess, said "numerous photographers" had "made their transport difficult" on the night.
The statement said there were "no reported collisions, summonses, injuries or arrests".
New York Mayor Eric Adams condemned the photographers for being "reckless and irresponsible".
He added that it would be "horrific" for Harry to be involved in an accident similar to the one that killed his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997.
Prince Harry to appeal High Court ruling over UK security
Prince Harry will seek to appeal the ruling dismissing his challenge over a decision to change the level of his personal security in the UK, a spokesman said.
The Duke of Sussex took legal action against the Home Office over the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.
Ravec's decision came as a result of a change in the prince's "status" after he stopped being a "full-time working member of the royal family", the judge was told.
The ruling rejected the duke's case and concluded Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.
A spokesman for Prince Harry said that he will appeal, adding: "The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec's own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec's own written policy.
"In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.
"The duke's case is that the so-called 'bespoke process' that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.
"The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing".
At a hearing in London in December, the duke's lawyers said he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" in the decision by Ravec - a body that falls under the remit of the Home Office.
They said a failure to carry out the risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him meant the approach to his protection was "unlawful and unfair".
The government said the prince’s claim should be dismissed, arguing Ravec was entitled to conclude his protection should be "bespoke" and considered on a "case-by-case" basis.
In the 52-page partially redacted ruling, the judge said the duke’s lawyers had taken "an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process".
He added: "The 'bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound".
The judge said he accepted comments from former Ravec chair Richard Mottram who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Prince Harry’s legal arguments in February 2020, "I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons".
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.
The duke, who was not present at the December hearing, lives in the United States with wife Meghan and their two children after the couple announced they were stepping back as senior royals in January 2020.
He returned briefly to the UK on 6 February without his family to be with his father following news of King Charles' cancer diagnosis.
The duke’s lawyers told the judge in December that he believes his children cannot "feel at home" in the UK if it is "not possible to keep them safe" there.
The majority of the proceedings were held in private, without the public or press present, because of confidential evidence over security measures for the prince and other public figures.
The judge said his ruling contained redactions because if such information was made public it would have "a serious adverse impact on the individuals concerned, as well as being contrary to the public interest, including that of national security".
Home Office lawyers had argued that the duke was no longer a member of the group of people whose "security position" was under regular review by Ravec, but he was "brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances".
The court was told it was "simply incorrect" to suggest there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Princess Diana was raised as part of the decision.
Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: "We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further.
"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".
