Implications for the UK close protection sector. Analysis current as of 1st September 2026. This page has been updated to reflect the Sussexes’ permanent relocation to the United Kingdom.
On 27th August 2026, a chartered jet landed at a private terminal at Birmingham Airport carrying the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their two children. They were met by their own security team. No police protection officers were present.
The family had not arrived for a visit. They had arrived to live here.
The relocation was announced only days earlier: a permanent move from California to a private, non-royal residence outside London, with the children due to start school in September. On the question that has followed the Duke for six years, the position on arrival was reported to be unchanged. Protection would not be extended beyond the provision of a telephone number for a police liaison officer. A former Metropolitan Police officer who once guarded the King described the decision as incredible and said it left the family exposed.
The government’s position is that the matter sits with RAVEC. The Home Office maintains its standing formulation that the protective security system is rigorous and proportionate, and that individual arrangements are not discussed. The Prime Minister, asked directly, described the family’s security funding as a private matter. Officials have indicated that a fresh assessment is required now the family is resident, with recommendations to follow in due course.
This is a different question from the one the courts spent three years answering. Every RAVEC decision concerning the Duke since February 2020 has been built on a single assumption: that he lives abroad and comes here occasionally, on notice, for identifiable engagements. That assumption no longer holds. A framework designed to assess visits is now being asked to assess a home, a school run, and a family in permanent residence. In the interval, the entire burden falls on private provision.
For the private close protection sector, this is the clearest illustration yet of the boundary this article examines. A figure at the very top of the public profile, with documented threats on the record, is living in Britain under wholly private protection. What follows sets out what RAVEC is, how the case reached this point, what permanent residency changes about the security requirement, and what the line between public policing and private protection means for anyone responsible for their own safety.
RAVEC, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, oversees protective security for senior public figures in Great Britain. It operates under the Home Office. It determines which individuals receive publicly funded police protection, at what level, and under what conditions.
Its membership draws on three institutions: the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, and the Royal Household. An independent chair oversees it. Its decisions are informed by the Risk Management Board, a subordinate body of senior police and security service officials who conduct the threat and risk assessments for the individuals under consideration.
Under RAVEC’s 2017 Terms of Reference, the standard process requires the Risk Management Board to complete a formal risk assessment before any determination is made. The board evaluates threat level, public profile, event exposure, and operational proportionality. RAVEC then decides whether the individual qualifies for protection and, if so, in what form. Provision ranges from full-time armed close protection to event-specific or visit-based coverage.
The central distinction is between automatic protection and bespoke protection. Automatic protection is permanent security provided to working members of the Royal Family and certain other high-risk figures. Bespoke protection is assessed on a case-by-case basis and typically requires advance notice of movements.
| Component | Role | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| RAVEC (Committee) | Final decision-making authority on who receives protection and at what level | Home Office, Metropolitan Police, and Royal Household representatives, with an independent chair |
| Risk Management Board | Conducts the formal threat and risk assessments that inform RAVEC decisions | Senior police and security service officials |
| Home Office | Legally responsible for RAVEC decisions and their implementation | Government department with policy and budgetary authority |
| Metropolitan Police (RaSP) | Delivers operational protection through Royalty and Specialist Protection | Armed close protection officers, surveillance detection, secure transport |
The dispute is not recent. It is the product of a six-year sequence of decisions, legal challenges, and procedural questions that began when the Duke stepped back from royal duties in early 2020.
On 28th February 2020, following the Duke’s announcement that he would step back from official duties and relocate to North America, RAVEC withdrew the automatic provision of police protection for the Duke and Duchess. The withdrawal took effect on 31st March 2020. From that date, any security support during UK visits would be assessed on a case-by-case basis and would require advance notice of travel.
RAVEC made this decision without commissioning a fresh risk assessment, despite its 2017 Terms of Reference normally requiring one. The previous assessment, conducted in April 2019 when the Duke was still a working royal, was considered by the then chair, Sir Richard Mottram, to have been overtaken by the change in circumstances. Sir Richard adopted what he described as a more flexible and tailored approach, deciding at the RAVEC level using intelligence briefings rather than through the formal cycle.
The Duke challenged the decision in court. His case was that the committee had failed to follow its own procedures, and that withdrawing protection exposed him and his family to unacceptable risk. His legal team argued that RAVEC had misapplied its policy by not convening the Risk Management Board, and that the Royal Household’s representatives had exerted undue influence.
| Date | Development | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| July 2022 | High Court grants permission for judicial review of RAVEC | Case proceeds to full hearing |
| May 2023 | Court rejects the Duke’s offer to privately fund armed police officers | Private individuals cannot purchase state security |
| February 2024 | High Court dismisses the broader security claim | RAVEC’s approach found neither irrational nor procedurally unfair |
| June 2024 | Permission to appeal granted | Two-day hearing scheduled |
| April 2025 | Court of Appeal hearing | The Duke’s team argues he was singled out for inferior treatment |
| May 2025 | Appeal dismissed | Court upholds RAVEC’s discretionary authority; bespoke arrangements found lawful |
The Court of Appeal’s May 2025 ruling was decisive. Sir Geoffrey Vos found that the Duke had been moving in and out of the protection cohort, and that the committee’s response was understandable, even predictable, given his change of status and overseas residence. The court recorded considerable respect for Sir Richard Mottram, whose expertise in royal protection it regarded as unrivalled.
The Duke responded publicly, describing the outcome as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up” and warning that the ruling set a precedent under which security could be used to control members of the Royal Family.
Rather than pursue further litigation, the Duke wrote privately to the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in October 2025, requesting a full security risk assessment. In December 2025, RAVEC instructed its Risk Management Board to conduct the first comprehensive threat assessment of the Duke since 2020. This was a marked procedural shift, given the committee’s previous reluctance to commission a formal analysis in his case.
Two factors were reported to have prompted the reassessment. The first was the procedural gap created by the absence of a formal risk assessment since 2019. The second was a series of documented security incidents during the Duke’s UK visits in 2025, most notably a stalking episode in September 2025 in which a woman reportedly reached close physical proximity to him at a public engagement. A second such encounter was prevented by the intervention of a private security officer.
The position as of late June 2026 was settled on the narrow question and open on the broad one. On the visit itself, RAVEC refused the Duke’s application for a police protection package. Protection will be provided only while the family is inside a royal residence; the King has offered them a royal property for part of the stay, with private accommodation expected for the remainder. For the rest of the visit, the family would rely on their own private team.
On the broader question, nothing has been determined. A Risk Management Board assessment was reported to have been completed at the end of July, but its conclusions were not disclosed to the Duke before he travelled, and no RAVEC determination has followed. Officials have since indicated that a further assessment is required now the family is resident, with recommendations to come in due course.
Then the question changed. In August, the family relocated permanently and arrived with no police protection at all; according to reports, provision was limited to a telephone number for a liaison officer. Two refusals in three months, and a family now living here under the cover of their own arrangement.
Whatever the wider review eventually concludes, the record for the July visit already stands. The state was asked, and it declined. What has changed since is not the answer but the question, because protecting a visitor and protecting a resident are not the same undertaking.
| Date | Development | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| June 2026 | Police protection package refused for the Invictus countdown visit | Cover limited to time inside a royal residence |
| July 2026 | The Duke attends London engagements alone | The Duchess and children do not travel |
| Late July 2026 | Risk Management Board reported to have completed a fresh assessment | Conclusions not disclosed to the Duke before his return |
| 20th July 2026 | Andy Burnham becomes Prime Minister | Security described by No. 10 as a private matter |
| August 2026 | Relocation to a private residence outside London announced | RAVEC required to consider a new set of circumstances |
| 27th August 2026 | Family arrives at Birmingham Airport | Met by private security; no police protection |
| August 2026 | Protection reported unchanged | Provision limited to a police liaison telephone number |
| 30th August 2026 | Sunday Times reports a letter to the policing minister | The Duke alleges he was not warned of a 2023 threat |
Twenty-eight days’ notice. A defined arrival and departure. A list of engagements assessed one by one, some granted, some refused. Whatever its merits, the arrangement in place since 2020 is a framework for episodes, and episodes are what it does well.
Permanent residence removes every one of those assumptions, and it does so in four distinct ways.
A fixed address can be found. A four-day visit to a hotel or a royal residence gives a hostile party very little to work with. A permanent home gives them a target that does not move. Reconnaissance becomes possible: not as a theoretical risk but as a practical one, conducted at leisure by anyone sufficiently motivated to locate the property. This is the single largest change, and it is why residential security, not close protection, becomes the foundation of the programme.
Routine replaces exception. The most difficult movement in any protective programme is the one that happens at the same time, on the same route, every day. A school run is exactly that, and it involves children. Court appearances and public engagements create known movements too, but they are infrequent and heavily planned. A term-time timetable is neither.
The geography changes. Six years of this case have been argued in the context of central London, where the Metropolitan Police’s Royalty and Specialist Protection command operates and where armed response is measured in minutes. A rural county is a different operating environment: longer response times, a different force with different resourcing, and mutual aid arrangements that are not designed around a standing VIP presence. Private planning has to account for that gap rather than assume it away.
There is no end date. Episodic protection can be surged. A standing requirement cannot. Continuous cover for a family of four needs enough operatives to rotate shifts, cover leave, and sustain the standard over months rather than days; which is why the cost of permanent protection is not the cost of a visit multiplied by more days.
| Requirement | Visit-based protection | Resident protection |
|---|---|---|
| Primary discipline | Close protection | Residential security, with close protection layered on |
| Address | Temporary, controlled, brief | Fixed, permanent, findable |
| Movement profile | Planned engagements, advance work per event | Daily routine, including school runs |
| Reconnaissance exposure | Limited by duration | Continuous |
| Police interface | Metropolitan Police, event-led | County force, standing liaison |
| Team structure | Surge team for the duration | Rotating establishment with leave cover |
| Counter-surveillance | Event-specific | Continuous, pattern-based |
| Cost basis | Day rate × duration | Annual programme |
None of this is unique to the Sussexes. It is the same transition faced by any principal who moves from occasional exposure in a country to permanent presence in it: an executive relocating for a posting, a family office establishing a UK base, a public figure buying a country property. The Sussex case is simply the most visible current example of a change that private providers are asked to manage regularly and that is almost always underestimated at the planning stage.
This is not only a royal story. It is a policy question about the boundary between publicly funded police protection and private security provision in the United Kingdom. The answer affects anyone who relies on, or may come to need, personal protection.
RAVEC’s decision establishes a framework for allocating protection to individuals who were once within the state security cohort but whose circumstances have changed. It applies not only to royals who step back from their duties, but also potentially to former prime ministers, senior diplomats, intelligence officials, and other public figures whose threat profiles endure after they leave office.
If RAVEC reinstates protection, it establishes that threat level, not current official role, is the primary determinant. If it declines, it reinforces the principle that publicly funded protection is conditional on active public service. Either outcome recalibrates the boundary between state and private responsibility for personal security at the highest level.
One dimension of the case is frequently misunderstood: the difference between what the police can provide and what the private sector can deliver. Under UK law, private security operatives cannot carry firearms. Only police officers can provide armed close protection on British soil. This is not a matter of licensing or cost. It is a legal prohibition that shapes the structure of personal protection in this country.
It follows that no level of private expenditure can replicate the core capability of a Metropolitan Police Royalty and Specialist Protection detail: armed officers with powers of arrest, access to real-time intelligence, and the authority to coordinate directly with other emergency services. For an individual facing a credible threat of armed attack, this gap is operational, not theoretical.
| Capability | Metropolitan Police (RaSP) | Private Close Protection (SIA-Licensed) |
|---|---|---|
| Armed protection | Authorised firearms officers | Not permitted under UK law |
| Powers of arrest | Full police powers | Citizen’s arrest only |
| Real-time intelligence | Direct feed from the security and counter-terrorism agencies | Open-source and commercial intelligence only |
| Emergency service coordination | Integrated with ambulance, fire, and specialist response | Calls 999 as any member of the public would |
| Secure government buildings | Authorised access to restricted areas | No access without prior arrangement |
| Surveillance detection | Specialist trained officers | Available through experienced providers |
| Secure transportation | Armoured vehicles and advanced drivers | Security drivers and route planning; armoured vehicles on request |
| Residential security | Static officer deployment at the residence | CCTV, access control, alarm monitoring, and physical guarding |
| Travel security planning | Advance reconnaissance for UK visits | Full threat assessment and advance work, UK and international |
The case should be followed closely by the personal protection sector. Its effect on the market runs through two channels of very different size.
The Sussexes’ own requirement. Most of it sits outside RAVEC’s reach: the committee’s remit is Great Britain, so the family’s home in California and their travel elsewhere stay privately protected, whatever it decides. In the UK, the key point is that the two forms of protection are never combined. The family is guarded either by the police or by a private team – never by both, and never by one supplementing the other. Their UK demand is therefore all-or-nothing, and it follows the outcome: full reinstatement means the police take every visit and private firms have no UK role; a refusal means every visit is private; the case-by-case arrangement decides each visit on its own, police for the occasions they cover and private for the rest. UK demand is greatest if protection is refused and falls away entirely if it is restored.
The signal to the wider market. This is the larger effect, and it does not turn on the Sussexes at all. The litigation has settled, in public, three principles that reach far beyond one family: state protection is discretionary, it cannot be purchased, and the armed gap is permanent. None of the outcomes extends state protection to the private citizens who sit outside that cohort. So for every principal with a comparable profile – ultra-high-net-worth individuals, senior executives, public figures – the case resolves in one direction only: private provision is the primary mechanism, not a supplement to it.
| Who reassesses their position | What the litigation settles for them | Where demand concentrates |
|---|---|---|
| Non-working royals and former office-holders | Threat, not title, determines state cover – and it may not be granted | Standing residential and travel security; police liaison |
| Ultra-high-net-worth individuals and families | State protection cannot be assumed, and cannot be bought | Family office security, residential security, secure transport |
| Senior executives and public figures | Public profile and predictable movements concentrate risk | Advance work, protection teams, surveillance detection |
| Individuals facing fixated or obsessive attention | The armed gap is permanent; prevention is the private remedy | Threat assessment, surveillance and counter-surveillance |
The direction is the same in every case: the floor under private close protection rises, in the volume of work and in the standard expected of it. The three scenarios below set the size of that effect, not its sign.
As of September 2026, the third is no longer a forecast. It is the observed position. The family is resident in the United Kingdom and protected entirely by private means, pending a fresh determination whose timing has not been announced. Whether that becomes the settled outcome or an interval before something else is the open question. What is no longer open is whether it can happen: it has.
If RAVEC restores automatic armed police protection for UK visits, the operational burden will return to the Metropolitan Police’s Royalty and Specialist Protection command. The resourcing implication is direct. The command is already committed across protection duties for the King, the Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, other working royals, visiting heads of state, and designated VIPs. A permanent or part-time detail for a non-working royal based overseas places further demand on specialist armed officers.
Within the UK, this scenario would move most of the Sussexes’ protection from private firms to the police, the family included, for the duration of each visit. It would not end their private relationship: RAVEC’s remit stops at the British border, so their California home and their travel elsewhere remain privately protected whatever happens in London. The effect on the sector is felt less in Sussex work gained or lost than in two things – the resourcing strain a new standing detail places on RaSP, already committed across the working royals and visiting heads of state, and the premium it puts on providers who can hand a principal over to a police team on arrival in Britain and resume cover on departure.
If RAVEC preserves the case-by-case model, each UK visit is assessed on its own. Where the committee grants police protection – in practice, the national and state occasions to which the family is invited – the police carry that visit in full. Where it does not, the visit is the private sector’s responsibility in full. The two are not blended: there is no police detail supplemented by private operatives, and no private detail supplemented by police. This is the arrangement that has applied since 2020, and it is the one most likely to sustain private work at the highest level, because every visit that falls outside the granted occasions is wholly privately protected.
The operational requirements under this model are advance threat assessment and planning for every visit, teams able to manage a high-profile principal in a media-saturated environment, secure transportation with vetted advanced drivers, surveillance and counter-surveillance capability, residential security for temporary accommodation, and rapid coordination with police when a specific threat materialises.
A full refusal, in which RAVEC determines that the Duke does not meet the threshold for any publicly funded protection, would be the most consequential outcome for the private market. It would place the entire burden of his UK security on private providers, and would establish that even a very high-profile individual with documented threats can fall outside the state cohort.
For the wider market, that precedent would signal to ultra-high-net-worth individuals, senior executives, and public figures that state protection cannot be assumed, whatever their profile. The signal raises demand for comprehensive private provision and raises the standard expected of providers.
This scenario has now been tested in practice. A family with a documented threat history, at the highest level of public profile, is living in Britain without publicly funded protection. Whatever RAVEC eventually determines, the precedent has already been demonstrated rather than merely argued.
The September 2025 incidents that prompted the review exposed a gap in the Duke’s private arrangements at the time. A woman reached close proximity at a public engagement; a second encounter was prevented only by an operative’s intervention. The point is precise. Private close protection mitigates threats effectively only when the model is properly resourced, the operatives are experienced, and the advance planning is thorough.
Every close protection operative working in the United Kingdom must hold a valid SIA Close Protection Licence, issued by the Security Industry Authority under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The SIA regulates the private security sector across England, Wales, and Scotland. The close protection licence is the highest level of individual licensing in the industry.
SIA licensing establishes a minimum standard, not a measure of excellence. The licence confirms that an operative has completed a recognised training programme and passed background checks. It does not confirm operational experience, specialist capability, or the ability to work in the high-pressure, media-saturated environments that characterise protection at this level.
The UK close protection market comprises approximately 6,528 private security businesses. The majority employ fewer than five people. Only 85 firms employ 250 or more. Quality, therefore, varies widely, and selecting a provider based solely on SIA licensing is inadequate for any engagement involving a high-profile principal under credible threat.
For those who cannot rely on state protection, by choice or by circumstance, the quality of the private provider is the primary determinant of their safety. The case illustrates the capabilities that separate competent providers from those that are merely licensed.
Cost is one of the tensions in the case. Publicly funded police protection during UK visits involves armed officers, vehicles, intelligence support, coordination, and planning, all funded by the taxpayer through the Home Office and Metropolitan Police budgets. The annual cost of protecting a senior royal is not disclosed; estimates cited in parliamentary questions and reporting place the cost of full-time coverage in the millions of pounds per year.
The Duke offered to fund armed police protection privately. The courts rejected the offer in 2023, on the basis that private individuals cannot purchase state security. The ruling confirms that the armed protection gap cannot be closed with money. The framework does not permit private procurement of police services, regardless of the willingness or capacity to pay.
Private close protection in the UK typically costs between £500 and £2,000 per operative per day, depending on experience, requirements, and duration. A comprehensive programme, including advance planning, secure transportation, surveillance detection, and multiple operatives, can run to tens of thousands of pounds per month. This is substantially less than full-time police protection. It also delivers a different, and necessarily unarmed, capability.
Applied to a resident family, those day rates compound quickly. Asked by The Times what private protection for the Sussexes in Britain would cost, Westminster Security’s managing director John Moore estimated a minimum of £3 million a year, rising towards £5 million depending on variables including international travel and public appearances.
The floor figure assumes a modest establishment: four operatives and two vehicles with security chauffeurs. That is not a lavish arrangement. It is roughly what continuous cover for a family of four requires once shift rotation and leave are accounted for. The upper figure assumes something materially different: a 24-hour residential security team, a security advance party, counter-surveillance capability, and armoured vehicles.
The distance between those two numbers is the distance between covering a family and securing a home. It is also, in practice, where most of the planning judgement sits.
| Factor | Police Protection (RaSP) | Private Close Protection |
|---|---|---|
| Funding source | Taxpayer (Home Office and Met Police budgets) | Principal, family, or employer |
| Typical daily cost per operative | Not disclosed | £500–£2,000, by experience and requirement |
| Armed capability | Authorised firearms officers | Not available in the UK |
| Intelligence access | Full government intelligence feeds | Open-source, commercial, and media monitoring |
| Scalability | Limited by police resourcing and competing demands | Scalable through the provider’s operative network |
| International coverage | Operates globally | Global, through licensed local partners |
The UK private security industry is valued at approximately £8.9 billion across 10,665 enterprises, of which 6,528 operate in security and investigation. Close protection is a specialist niche within that market. The cost of entry is comparatively high: training alone costs £1,000 to £3,000, and the pool of qualified operatives is correspondingly smaller than in general guarding or door supervision.
Demand for close protection has grown steadily, driven by factors exemplified by the case.
The case offers several practical lessons for anyone assessing their own security requirements, in the UK or internationally.
The review has exposed the political tensions in the UK’s protection framework. The March 2026 reporting of a split within RAVEC, with police and security officials supporting reinstatement and political figures resisting it, illustrates a structural tension: decisions that should be intelligence-led are subject to public perception and institutional dynamics.
The Duke’s legal team has argued that the Royal Household’s presence on RAVEC creates a conflict of interest, alleging that Palace representatives influenced the original 2020 decision. The courts have not upheld the allegation. Former royal aides have responded that the Palace holds no power within RAVEC to advise on threat analysis or mitigation, and that characterising adverse decisions as establishment interference is both unjust and inaccurate.
For the private sector, the political dimension creates uncertainty. Decisions driven by political calculation rather than threat assessment can shift demand between public and private provision without warning. Providers with strong institutional relationships, police liaison experience, and the capacity to operate at short notice are better placed to manage that volatility.
No determination has been published as of September 2026. The following indicators will mark the direction and timing of the outcome.
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), also known as the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, is the Home Office body that determines which members of the Royal Family and other high-profile figures receive taxpayer-funded police protection in Great Britain. It comprises representatives of the Home Office, Metropolitan Police, and Royal Household, and its decisions are informed by formal risk assessments from the Risk Management Board. It evaluates threat level, public profile, and operational proportionality.
Under UK law, private security operatives cannot carry firearms; only police officers can provide armed close protection. The Duke offered to fund armed police officers privately, and the courts rejected the offer in 2023. The framework does not permit private individuals to purchase state security, whatever their capacity to pay. The armed protection gap cannot be closed through private spending.
The larger effect is the precedent, not the Sussexes’ own arrangements. The case has established in public that state protection is discretionary, that it cannot be purchased, and that the armed gap cannot be closed by private spending. For anyone outside the narrow state cohort, such as ultra-high-net-worth individuals, senior executives, and public figures, this confirms private provision as the primary mechanism rather than a supplement to it.
The 2026 relocation sharpens the point twice over. It shows that a very high public profile with documented threats on the record is no guarantee of state cover. And it shows what changes when protection becomes permanent rather than episodic: a fixed address, a daily routine, and a requirement built on residential security and standing counter-surveillance rather than event-by-event close protection. Whatever RAVEC eventually determines, that direction does not reverse.
Verify SIA Close Protection Licensing for every operative, and SIA Approved Contractor Scheme status for the company. Confirm insurance with the appropriate territorial scope. Assess operational experience with comparable engagements, not service history alone. Evaluate the provider’s threat assessment methodology, advance planning, police liaison, and ability to operate across jurisdictions. Consistency of personnel and the quality of the planning process are the clearest indicators of a serious provider.
Private close protection can replicate many elements: threat assessment, advance planning, surveillance detection, secure transportation, residential security, and intelligence monitoring. It cannot provide armed officers, powers of arrest, real-time access to government intelligence, or direct institutional coordination with emergency services. For a principal facing a threat of armed attack, this limit is significant. The most effective approach is a layered model that maximises private capability while maintaining established channels for rapid police escalation.
Not as of September 2026. On the family’s arrival in August, reporting indicated their protection had not been extended beyond the provision of a police liaison officer’s telephone number. Officials have said a fresh assessment is required now they are resident, with recommendations to follow. Until any determination is made and implemented, the family’s protection in Britain is privately provided.
Westminster Security’s managing director John Moore estimated to The Times a minimum of £3 million a year for a family in the Sussexes’ position, rising to around £5 million depending on international travel and public engagements. The lower figure covers roughly four operatives and two vehicles with security chauffeurs. The upper figure adds a 24-hour residential team, an advance party, counter-surveillance, and armoured vehicles. Costs for most principals sit well below this; the drivers are the size of the family, the permanence of the requirement, and the level of public attention.
The case has made a usually private question public: where the boundary falls between the protection the state provides and the protection an individual must arrange. For almost everyone, the answer is that the boundary falls on the private side.
Westminster Security’s managing director John Moore has commented on the Sussexes’ security arrangements and costs for The Times and the Daily Express. For media enquiries, contact the office on 0207 123 4544.
As a leading bodyguard agency in London, we can provide you with anything from one individual bodyguard to a full close protection team, complemented by security chauffeurs, luxury armoured vehicles, counter-surveillance, and residential security teams, utilising dog handlers and mobile security patrols if necessary.
Westminster Security provides professional close protection security services in London, the UK, and worldwide.