Prince Harry opposes a reduction in security measures. - A judge permits a case to be reconsidered.
Harry, Prince (39) gained approval from the Supreme Court for an appeal against a prior ruling. This decision by the Supreme Court came after a judge in the Appeals Court dismissed his lawsuit regarding a change in his security levels during visits to the UK.
The Appeal Court is now set to take the appeal into account, following the submission of a direct application from Harry's legal team, asserting he was given permission to appeal. The Prince initiated the case following the Home Office's action in February 2020, when they discontinued his right to automatic police protection during his UK visit.
Prince Harry was entitled to full and publicly funded security protection, as other high-ranking royal family members, until he resigned from his royal duties and relocated with his wife Meghan (42) and son Archie (5) to California in March 2020. Their daughter Lilibet (3) was born in the US in 2021. The Ravec committee, responsible for protecting royals and public figures, decided against the same level of security previously provided, as Harry was no longer a "full-time working royal."
In Judge Sir Peter Lane's opinion, Ravec had the authority to make this ruling. He also ordered Harry to pay 90% of the "reasonable costs" of the Home Office for the court fees in this instance. The overall expenditure incurred by the government was not publicly disclosed.
Green Light for Appeal: Judge Sees "Significant Chance of Victory"
When Judge David Bean allowed the appeal, he remarked that he was "unhesitatingly" convinced Harry's appeal, centering on Ravec not adhering to its own policy, had a "significant chance of success." Additionally, the court indicated that Sir Peter might have erred in concluding Harry did not share the same position as individuals in a "different VIP category" receiving government security.
In a previous hearing, Harry declared that the United Kingdom is his "home" and a significant location for his children's inheritance. "It was tremendously upsetting for my wife and me that we were compelled to resign from our roles and depart the country in 2020. The UK is my home."
He further added, "The UK is pivotal for the inheritance of my children, and a place where they must feel comfortable, just like they do now in the United States. This cannot be achieved if they cannot be safe while on British soil. I cannot expose my wife to such peril, and considering my past, I am not willing to put myself in any unnecessary danger."
A representative for Harry explained at the time of the verdict that he was not requesting special treatment but a fair application of Ravec's rules and policies.
Read also:
- Despite Prince Harry's opposition to a lower security level during his visits to Great Britain, the Court of Appeals initially dismissed his lawsuit.
- The Ministry of the Interior in Great Britain discontinued Harry's right to automatic police protection in February 2020, which led to his initiation of a case against lower security levels in the Court of Law.
- Following the Home Office's action, Duchess Meghan's husband, Prince Harry, argued that he should still receive full security as other royals do, even though he resides in California with his family.
- Peter Lane, a judge, ruled that Harry should pay 90% of the Home Office's court fees due to his false claims of sharing the same security level as other VIPs, as determined by the Ravec Committee.
- Given the potential for Harry's appeal to succeed, the Supreme Court granted permission for him to reconsider the lower security level ruling made by the Appeal Court.
- With a significant chance of victory, Prince Harry plans to challenge the Ravec committee's failure to adhere to its own policies regarding his security level within the United Kingdom.
