Prince Harry lost his appeal on Friday to question the British government’s decision to strip him of his security publicly funded after having moved away from the tasks of the royal family and moved to the United States
The Court of Appeal unanimously judged that a committee had not treated Harry unfairly when he decided to review his protection on a case-by-case basis each time he visits the United Kingdom
Judge Geoffrey your declared in a 21 -page judgment that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated and that his lawyer had advanced powerful arguments on behalf. But he said that Harry’s grievance was not a legal reason to challenge the decision to refuse him regular security.
“From the point of view of the Duke of Sussex, something may have been wrong, in the sense that an involuntary consequence of his decision to step back from the royal tasks and to spend the majority of his time abroad received a more tailor-made level of protection and generally less than when he was in the United Kingdom,” said. “But that does not, in itself, give a legal complaint.”
The decision is likely to leave the Duke of Sussex with a major invoice to pay the legal costs of the British government – in addition to the costs of its own lawyers.
He was not immediately clear if he wanted to appeal to the British Supreme Court.
Get national news
For news that has an impact on Canada and worldwide, register for the safeguarding of news alerts that are delivered to you directly when they occur.
The decision confirmed the decision of a high court judge last year who revealed that a “tailor -made” plan for the security of the Duke of Sussex was not illegal, irrational or unjustified.
Harry made a rare appearance for the two -day hearing last month when his lawyer argued that his life was in danger and that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee had distinguished him for lower treatment.
“There is a person sitting behind me who says he gets a special tailor -made process when he knows and has experienced a process that is clearly inferior in all respects,” said lawyer Shaheed Fatima. “His presence here and throughout this call is a powerful illustration – was necessary – what this call means for him and his family.”
A government lawyer said Harry’s argument had repeated his erroneous approach which failed before the lower court.
“This implies a continuous failure to see wood for trees, to advance the proposals available only by reading small parts of evidence, and now the judgment outside context and ignoring the entire image,” said lawyer James Eadie.
Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, fell from their official roles in the family in 2020 because they did not think they were “protected by the institution,” said his lawyer.
After that, a Home Office committee judged that there was “no basis for the support of the public funded for the Duke and the Duchess in Great Britain”.
Harry said that he and his family were endangered when they visit his homeland due to hostility aimed at him and Meghan on social networks and through the incessant hunting by the media.
Since lost his protection sponsored by the government, Harry has faced at least two serious security threats, his lawyer said in court documents. Al-Qaeda had published a document that said that Harry’s assassination would appeal to Muslims, and he and his wife were involved in a paparazzi pursuit in New York.
Harry, 40, the youngest son of King Charles III, shaken up the convention of the royal family by taking the government and the press at Tabloids in the court, where he has a mixed file.
He lost a related judicial case in which he asked for permission to pay a police detail in private when, in the United Kingdom, a judge denied this offer after a government lawyer argued that the officers should not be used as “private bodyguards for the rich”.
But he won an important victory at the trial against the publisher of the Daily Mirror when a judge found that the hacking of the tabloid was “widespread and usual”. He won a “monumental” victory in January, when the British tabloids of Rupert Murdoch made unprecedented apologies to get into his life for years and agreed to pay substantial damage to settle his invasion of privacy.
He has a similar case pending against the editor of the Daily Mail.
& Copy 2025 the Canadian press
