The ties that bind Henry of England to his country are increasingly more legal than familial. The Duke of Sussex has several lawsuits pending in British courts, against the media and against the government itself, with varying degrees of success. This Wednesday, February 28, Judge Peter Lane of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales granted the youngest son of King Charles III. a blow in the case that confronted him with the Interior Ministry over the withdrawal of the bodyguard service. . The judge, who held the hearing behind closed doors last December, ruled in favor of the government's decision to release Prince Henry from the permanent security service he enjoyed in the United Kingdom. Shortly after learning of this decision, a spokesman for the prince announced that he would appeal the decision.
The Executive Committee for Royal and VIP Authorities (Ravec, the English acronym), the joint body of the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police, ended these police services the moment the Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan Markle announced that they were beginning In 2020, there would no longer be any public activities in the name of the royal family. Two years later, Henry of England asserted his right to fight in court against a decision he considered unfair both procedurally and substantively. and justice partially allowed him to continue his fight.
More information
Last December, Home Office lawyers assured Judge Lane that Prince Harry could continue to enjoy official protection during his visits to the UK – the Duke of Sussex, his wife and their two children have been living in California since March 2020. However, it was clarified that this could not be done permanently and automatically, but “with tailor-made preparations specially developed for this purpose”.
The Duke of Sussex even asked for the possibility of paying for police escort services himself, and his lawyers presented the judge with precedents defending this option. However, the British government's legal department defended its refusal in court, saying it was not right that “the rich” could “buy” their security with the services of armed police. Prince Henry lost the fight for this claim.
There was a chance that Judge Lane would rule against Ravec's decision, but the opposite was true. In a fifty-page judgment, the magistrate accused the prince's lawyers of having interpreted the tasks and powers of the executive committee in a formalistic and inappropriate manner. They defended at the time that Buckingham Palace had been involved in the decision as existing tensions between the royal family and Charles III's second son. were obvious. The judge recalled in his ruling that the palace's involvement in Ravec's decisions was envisaged in its composition and functioning, and defended the offer of “tailor-made security” to Henry of England as a “legally correct” solution. “We are pleased that the court ruled in favor of the government’s decision in this case and are carefully considering our next steps. “It would be inappropriate to comment further,” a spokesman said, adding that the security system was “strict and proportionate.”