Entertainment
break
Published February 28, 2024, 6:09 am ET
Prince Harry has lost his bid for taxpayer-funded British security protection for his family. Portal
Prince Harry has lost his bid for taxpayer-funded British security protection for his family.
London High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled on Wednesday that the original decision to deprive the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of their security in February 2020 did not constitute illegality.
The London Supreme Court found that any departure from the policy was justified and that the decision was not influenced by injustice.
This now means that Harry and his wife Meghan Markle will have to pay for their family's safety out of their own pockets when they visit the UK.
Harry, 39, was not present at the sentencing.
The father of two appeared before the London High Court in December. Tayfun Salci/Zuma / SplashNews.com
“We are pleased that the court has favored the government’s position in this case and are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further,” a Home Office spokesperson told The Post in a statement on the ruling on Wednesday.
“The UK Government’s safeguarding regime is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information about these arrangements as doing so could compromise their integrity and impact the safety of individuals.”
Harry and the Suits alum, 42, had their funded police protection withdrawn after they stepped away from their roles as “working royals” and moved to the US in 2020.
Harry's lawyers had sought a judicial review of the government's rejection of his offer to hire police officers as his private security guards, which was initially rejected by the London High Court in May 2023.
After the Duke's lawyers appealed the ruling, a judge granted permission for a full hearing to review the Home Office's decision to withdraw security from the Sussexes.
The father of two appeared in court on home soil back in December, where his challenge to the original sentence was heard over a period of two and a half days.
In the ruling, the Supreme Court judge rejected Harry's claim that he was entitled to a full risk analysis by the Risk Management Board (RMB).
“The plaintiff had no right, given his changed situation, to require RAVEC to initiate a new RMB proceeding,” Judge Lane said.
“In determining the fairness requirements in this context, it is important to understand that conducting an RMB valuation is neither a right nor a benefit. It is, as Sir James Eadie KC (for the Home Office) explains, an analytical tool.”
“I don’t believe there was any procedural injustice that could affect the decision,” he added.
The case was handled confidentially due to privacy concerns.
Harry's lawyers previously told the court that he had been “singled out” and treated “less favorably” in the decision to change his security. Portal
Harry told a hearing that safety concerns prevented him from attending his home field.
However, Judge Lane said that “this claim is without merit”.
“Britain is my home. “The United Kingdom is central to my children’s legacy,” Harry told the court last year in a written statement read out by his lawyers. “This can’t happen if it’s not possible to protect them.”
“I cannot put my wife in danger in this way and, given my life experiences, I hesitate to put myself in unnecessary danger as well,” he added.
The Sussexes had their funded police protection withdrawn after they gave up their role as “working royals” and moved to the US in 2020. WireImage
Harry initially lost a court attempt in May to challenge the British government's decision to ban him from paying for police protection during his visits to the United Kingdom.
Lawyers for the exiled royal said in an appeal that the decision was “procedurally unfair” because he was unable to make “informed statements” before his application was rejected.
The Duke of Sussex told a hearing that security concerns prevented him from visiting his home country. AP
In the first phase of the proceedings, the Duke's lawyers asked Judge Swift for permission for a full hearing, which was eventually granted.
Judge Swift said it was “questionable” whether the Duke “should have had the opportunity to address the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) directly.”
Load More…
{{#isDisplay}} {{/isDisplay}}{{#isAniviewVideo}} {{/isAniviewVideo}}{{#isSRVideo}} {{/isSRVideo}}
https://nypost.com/2024/02/28/entertainment/prince-harry-loses-bid-for-personal-police-protection-in-uk-at-london-high-court/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site %20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
Copy the URL to share