PRINCE Harry has lost his legal battle against the removal of his government-funded UK insurance after he lamented being treated “less favourably” than other members of the royal family.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, has vowed to appeal after losing his case against the Home Office for refusing to spend taxpayers’ money on bodyguards after he left the royal family.
6
Prince Harry lost bid for UK security todayCredit: Getty
6
He and Meghan, pictured in Canada this month, were stripped of round-the-clock protection after MegxitaCredit: Getty
6
The prince once said he couldn’t return to the UK with his family ‘because it’s too dangerous’ without insuranceCredit: Alexi Lubomirski
A judge ruled this morning that there was no “illegality” in the call to withdraw Harry’s insurance, which followed Megxit.
Retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane added that the decision was “justified” and was not “irrational” – as it was called.
But the Duke of Sussex vowed to appeal the ruling and insisted he was “not seeking preferential treatment”.
The Sussexes were stripped of round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
Harry moaned that he couldn’t go back with Meghan, Archie and Lilibet, “because it’s too dangerous”.
He was allowed security when staying at royal residences or attending royal events, but he had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
This morning it was decided that these terms are fair and will continue.
Although the cost of the royal family’s security is a secret for national security reasons, the Institute for Government reported that it could cost taxpayers as much as £100m.
It is not known how much full security for Prince Harry would cost, the Mirror reported that he and Meghan spend £1.58 million a year on protection in the US.
In May last year, the High Court heard how Harry launched a case against the Ministry of the Interior and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Copyright and Public Figures (Ravec).
He won his attempt to sue the government a year before.
These are two things Prince Harry must do if he is ever to win over the British public
During the hearing, Ravec argued that allowing Harry to pay for his own protective security would be against the public interest and undermine public confidence in the Met Police.
His legal team argued that he was not given an opportunity to speak to the board before rejecting his offer.
They also said the decision could not be reconciled with rules that specifically allow charging for certain police services.
This included the use of privately funded police at one-off events such as football matches, marathons and celebrity weddings.
Harry’s lawyers claimed he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision.
However, the lawyers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs claimed that he was no longer part of the group of people whose “security position” was regularly checked by Ravec.
They said he was instead “returned to the cohort in appropriate circumstances”.
The decision was not irrational.
Sir Peter Lane, retired judge of the High Court
The conclusions of the December hearing published today read: “The court found that there was no illegality in making the decision of February 28, 2020.”
“Any deviation from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational.
“The decision was not tainted by procedural unfairness. Even if such procedural unfairness had occurred, the court would in any case have been prevented from granting relief to the plaintiff.
“This is because, leaving aside any such illegality, it is highly likely that the outcome for the plaintiff would not have been materially different.”
It added: “The court also found that there was no illegality on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain visits by the Claimant to the UK, following the decision of 28 February 2020.”
In May last year, Harry lost a legal bid over his security after he was attacked for trying to use the Met Police as “private bodyguards for the rich”.
The Duke of Sussex has tried to appeal against a decision not to allow him to hire armed police bodyguards when he visits the UK.
Today, a legal spokesman added: “Vojvoda is not seeking preferential treatment, but a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same respect as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.
“In February 2020, Ravec did not apply his written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a certain risk analysis. It is the Duke’s case that the so-called “bespoke procedure” applied to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.
“The Duke of Sussex hopes to receive justice from the Court of Appeal and is not commenting further while the case is ongoing.”
Inside Prince Harry’s fury as UK security team pulled after Megxit
Prince Harry has gone to officials with many concerns amid his battle for insurance while in the UK.
Today’s revelations exposed some of them – including how Diana was treated, who was taking responsibility for his family and how he believed threat levels were raised because of ‘racism’.
Harry asked who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – “a position no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, at greater risk, as mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking responsibility for what might happen. I would like the name of that person who is willing to take responsibility for this choice, please…”.
The prince also asked if anyone had thought about the “consequences” of the decision to cut his insurance.
He said: “Prove to me that someone actually thought about the consequences without being punished, which is how most of the decisions have been made in the last few months.”
Harry pointed out, “The obvious difference besides that is the fact that I was born into this and the threat will never be lessened because of my family status.”
He wanted to fund the Met Police’s own armed bodyguards, but officials refused – with insiders insisting the officers were not “guns for hire”.
Following today’s ruling, a Home Office spokesman said: “We are pleased that the court has ruled in favor of the Government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.
“It would be inappropriate to comment further.
“The UK government’s safeguarding security system is rigorous and proportionate.
“It is our longstanding policy not to provide detailed information about these arrangements, as this could compromise their integrity and affect the safety of individuals.”
It has been revealed that when Harry visited King Charles after his cancer diagnosis, he had full security cover.
During a segment on TalkTV, royal expert Sarah Hewson explained that Harry is “always” covered by royal security services when he is in the UK on “official duties”.
She said: “Of course he didn’t have the 28 days that the Home Office said he should give notice to put together a full security plan, but these are the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in and the Royal Family find themselves in.”
The Duke of Sussex, 39, landed at Heathrow at lunchtime on February 6 after a 10.5 hour overnight flight.
He was flown to London as Charles, 75, delayed a helicopter flight to Sandringham so they could hold their first meeting in 16 months.
The expert added that Harry received the same level of security when he attended his father’s coronation last year.
What level of security protection are employed royals entitled to?
A HANDFUL of working royals have 24/7 protection – but the rest are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Senior officers are assigned to specific household members and supported by others, one expert told The Sun.
He claimed that there will always be at least one protection officer with a member of the royal family, but the protection team increases according to the threat and risk.
King Charles, Queen Camilla and the Wales family have around-the-clock protection, and the monarch also has a corridor officer stationed outside his bedroom door, the expert said.
The Express reported that the likes of Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex have protection when on official engagements – but no taxpayer-funded insurance in their homes.
Prince Andrew has had his taxpayer-funded insurance removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
His daughters Princess Beatrice and Prince Eugenie are said to have no funded insurance as they are not full-time royals – and are employed elsewhere.
Robert Jobson, award-winning royal author, explained: “Under the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V, the title of HRH Prince or Princess passes to the ‘Grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male’ line (except only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy on all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of this realm.
“Both Harry and Meghan know that. Archie, on the other hand, did not qualify to automatically become a prince.
“In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent to extend a previous decree which only granted such a title to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.”
6
A judge ruled today that the decision was ‘justified’ and not ‘irrational’ as it has been called Credit: Getty
6
King Charles is one of the royals who has 24/7 security Credit: AFP
6
Prince William and his family also do Credit: Getty
Categories: Optical Illusion
Source: HIS Education