The Judiciary website has the full documentation:
Judgment
Press summary
I'm currently unwell and have time on my hands, so read the full judgment. It's quite tough going in parts due to the number of redactions, but I still think it's worth reading.
It's clear (in his own words, paragraph 70) that Harry thought he should retain permanent full police protection due to his status at birth, not just because of the threat level.
Harry complains about being treated differently to [redacted] (I think this is likely to be a family member or members) and seeks numerous clarifications from RAVEC (paragraphs 179-180).
Personally, I think paragraph 192 seeks to clarify the differences between Harry and the people he has used for comparison. There is another brief mention of the comparators in paragraph 245: .....The fact that RAVEC does, on an exceptional basis, provide protective security to [redacted text] has been dealt with above....The fact that there is a different justification for a very small number of persons in respect of [redacted text] is nothing to the point.
Harry is considered an 'exceptional member' of the RAVEC cohort, i.e. those eligible to receive state funded protective security (paragraph 114).
Paragraph 240: Importantly, the decision of 28 February 2020 accepted that the claimant nevertheless occupied a particular and unusual position, such that it was appropriate to afford him protective security in certain circumstances, [redacted text]. This led to the “bespoke” arrangements, which I have described earlier and which, for the reasons I have given, are free from public law error.
Harry’s consistent argument is that these bespoke arrangements are not good enough.
Harry frequently asked for clarifications as to why (he perceived) his security arrangements to be different from [redacted]. Paragraph 118 makes it very clear that RAVEC gives careful consideration and covers a range of factors as part of the decision making process.
Harry complained of paparazzi intrusion during his journey to and from the Well Child event at Kew Gardens on 3rd July 2021. RAVEC were not informed of Harry’s visit until 11th June 2021, which was less than the 28-days' notice period that had previously been agreed (paragraphs 120-121).
Harry (via Schillings, his legal representatives) has complained the arrangements put in place by RAVEC for each of his visits to the UK since 2021 have been "inadequate, inappropriate and ineffective". The Government Legal Department replied and disagreed (paragraph 134).
There is some new information about the "near catastrophic" New York car chase on paragraph 135.
I thought the inclusion of paragraph 160 was quite telling.
With all of the above in mind, it is necessary to examine the evidence. Before doing so, however, I must first identify the correct approach........memory is fallible and is especially unreliable when someone comes to recalling past beliefs. This is because memories of past beliefs “are revised to make them more consistent with our present beliefs”. Furthermore, the process of civil litigation in itself subjects the memories of witnesses to powerful biases.
The judge concludes the defendants' witness statements and evidence are in alignment (example in paragraph 170). The judge clearly thinks the defendants have the correct knowledge and experience to perform their roles (paragraph 175).
I think paragraphs 186 and 187 are well worth a read.
Harry said in the Oprah interview "The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed."
Paragraph 216 adds some further info:
.....The paper provided by the Royal Household in January 2020 warned the claimant that he would likely need private security. At the meeting in mid-January 2020, the Cabinet Secretary explained to the claimant’s Private Secretary that the claimant should have no expectation of his existing security arrangements remaining the same. This was reiterated at the meeting of 27 January 2020......
Paragraphs 219-225 are interesting. Fiona Mcilwham was Harry & Meghan’s Private Secretary. She attended numerous meetings including representatives from the Royal Household and RAVEC. The evidence contains emails from her detailing the conversations had been relayed back to Harry. He claimed that he should have been independently and personally contacted by RAVEC. Harry says he did not fully brief Fiona so she was unable to make representations on his behalf. Paragraph 226 concludes that Fiona had a good grasp of her job and that Harry’s belief that additional steps should have been taken (to communicate with him independently of his Private Secretary) were "beside the point".
Harry’s 'offer to pay' for police protection is briefly covered in paragraph 243.
Harry argued the requirement for him to provide 28 days' notice of his intention to travel to the UK was irrational. The judge disagreed (paragraph 248). ....Given RAVEC’s expertise, the decision to require 28 days’ notice would need to be shown, by reference to evidence, to have been plucked out of the air or imposed for some extraneous reason, before this head of challenge could be made out. The claimant has pointed to nothing of the kind.
Personally, I can't work out what grounds Harry could use to appeal.