Prince Harry has lost a new appeal at the High Court in London over the Home Office’s decision to reduce his taxpayer-funded personal security when visiting the UK, something Charles III’s son will continue to fight in court at least one more time. This is one of the latest issues following his resignation in January 2020, when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decided to start a new life in the United States outside the British royal family.
The new ruling published this Wednesday, and which Enrique has already promised to appeal, alludes to the fact that the loss of the prince’s security level is not “irrational or procedurally unfair” and points out that the prince’s lawyers made “a formalistic and inappropriate interpretation” of the procedures. According to the ruling, parts of which have been declared secret, the prince requested more security “in light of several issues, including the fact that he was the son of King Charles III, brother of the Prince of Wales, and that Al Qaeda had recently requested that the plaintiff be killed.
The Duke of Sussex took two-pronged legal action over this decision to withdraw his security, made by the Royal and Public Figures Executive Committee (RAVEC). On the one hand, he tried to assert his right to official protection when visiting British territory, and, on the other, if this was not possible, he wanted to be able to make private payments out of his pocket to the British Home Office so that his security and that of his family continued to be in charge of State services during their visits to the United Kingdom, but another judge already dismissed that case in May of last year.
In the second case, the prince sought approval from the High Court in London to pay for his own protection in the United Kingdom, but for the State to take charge of the organization of that security. Responding to the judge’s demands, London’s Metropolitan Police insisted that its officers are not “hired weapons” for the rich and famous, and argued that allowing Enrique to pay for official protection would set an “unacceptable precedent.” They also agreed that it would be “wrong for a police force to put officers in danger after payment of a fee by a private individual.”
This new judicial setback for Prince Harry over his police security has been revealed in a week full of sad and surprising news about members of the British royal family. The strange absence on Tuesday of Prince William at Windsor Castle, which forced Kensington Palace to insist that the recovery of Princess Catherine of Wales “is progressing well”, was added a few hours later by the news of Thomas’s death Kingston, husband of Lady Gabriella Windsor, at 45 years old and in circumstances yet to be defined.
