May 24, 2023 at 8:11 am
King Charles’ second son had requested police protection at his expense on visits to the United Kingdom
IPA
London says no to that Private escort for Prince Harry during his visits to the UK with family. The judge of the High Court of London actually rejected this appeal Lawsuit of the second son of King Charles III. against the Home Office, which denied him the right to claim protection and paid him out of pocket after he lost the promised right at taxpayer expense to members of the royal family. The Prince’s most recent attempt to sue therefore ended with a resounding no.
The loss of the right to escort Among other things, Harry lost the benefit of the escort after he and his wife Meghan renounced the status of “active” member of the royal family after splitting from the Windsors in 2020 and moving to the United States.
Take the Home Office statement The court made this decision by accepting the reasons put forward at the time by the Ministry of the Interior and in particular by the Government Committee for the Protection of Kings and Public Figures (Ravec), which had rejected the Prince’s request and disputed the right to private payment to the public authority.
The 1996 Act and the ‘paid’ police services Police can therefore only offer protection to the Duke of Sussex and his wife on an occasional and discretionary basis. Harry’s lawyers had tried to challenge the Ravec’s decision based on a 1996 law allowing the “police chief” to provide special services “for a fee”, such as at major public events, sporting or entertainment events. But, as Judge Chamberlain pointed out, the services required by the Prince “involve” the employment of highly skilled special agents, of whom there are only a limited number, willing to take risks even to protect those being guarded.
Harry’s second defeat The unsuccessful appeal is Harry’s second against the Home Office after he took legal action to challenge the decision not to give him and his family “the same level” of personal protection following the loss of “senior” royals. However, the latter case, which is seeking a formal review of the decision, was given the go-ahead by the Supreme Court in July and will go to trial.
The paparazzi follow the couple The prince’s legal backlash comes days after he denounced the danger of an alleged “near-catastrophic” accident in New York in an episode reminiscent of the tragedy, which a spokesman for the Sussexes said was caused by paparazzi chasing the couple became the precedent of Paris that marked the end of Princess Diana, Harry’s mother. However, what happened on that occasion has been discounted by some American sources.
The successes against the tabloids However, Harry can take comfort in the successes he has had against the tabloids in the courts of the kingdom. The latest win came after the editors of the tabloid Mirror issued an “unreserved” apology to him at the start of a trial over alleged illegal wiretapping against him, hinting at future reparations. Over essentially similar claims, the Duke is embroiled in two other lawsuits, one against Associated Newspapers Limited, the editorial group that publishes the Chron on Sunday, and the other against Rupert Murdoch’s empire for the Sun and News of the World tabloids, which became closed at the time after a sensational scandal about mass invasions of privacy.
News
Related
LIKE DIANA
DO NOT CHANGE VERSION
Latest arrivals from Mondo
{{#Article}}
{{{Title}}}
{{/Article}}
Most viewed in the world
{{#Article}}
{{{Title}}}
{{/Article}}