Prince Harry has lost a High Court challenge against the government over
the level of his security when he is in the UK.

The Duke of Sussex failed to overturn a previous ruling which saw his
security status downgraded after he stopped being a working royal.

His lawyers had argued the way the decision was made had been unfair,
which the High Court ruling said was not the case.

Prince Harry launched the legal challenge after being told he would no
longer be given the same degree of publicly-funded protection when in
the country.

Arguing against the Duke's challenge, Home Office lawyers told the High
Court Prince Harry would still have publicly-funded police security, but
these would be "bespoke arrangements, specifically tailored to him",
rather than the automatic security provided for full-time working royals.

Much of the legal proceedings, which covered security arrangements for
senior figures, were held in private in December, with the ruling issued
by retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane this morning.

In the ruling, Sir Peter rejected the Duke's case, finding that there
had not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision to downgrade
Prince Harry's security status, and that any departure from policy was
justified.

It found the decision was not irrational, or procedurally unfair.

In the 51-page, partially redacted document, Sir Peter said Harry's
lawyers had taken "an inappropriate... interpretation" of how he got
security under the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) which
arranges security for members of the Royal Family and other VIPs. It
has delegated responsibility from the Home Office, and has involvement
from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.

The ruling also found that the "'bespoke' process devised" for Prince
Harry by Ravec "was, and is, legally sound".

Going into more detail on Prince Harry's position, Sir Peter wrote in
his ruling that the Duke "considers he should receive protective
security from the State, whenever he is in Great Britain, because of his
position within the Royal Family and factors concerning his past and
present situations. Ravec did not share this view."

He went on to say that in January 2020, the cabinet secretary told
Harry's private secretary "that the claimant should have no expectation
of his existing security arrangements remaining the same" and this was
"reiterated" at another meeting later in month.

Last year, Prince Harry lost a separate legal bid to be allowed to make
private payments for police protection when he was visiting the UK, in a
case that also focused on concerns about reduced security since ceasing
to be a full-time working royal.

A spokesperson for Prince Harry said he would appeal against Wednesday's
judgement.

"The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and
lawful application of Ravec's own rules, ensuring that he receives the
same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec's own written
policy," they said in a statement.

They added that "Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of
Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis".

However, in Sir Peter's ruling he said that undergoing a risk assessment
"is not a right or even a benefit. It is... an analytical tool".

Prince Harry's spokesperson argued that the "so-called 'bespoke process'
that applies to him, is no substitute for that risk analysis".

They added: "The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the
Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing."

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for the Home Office spokesperson
said it was "pleased that the court has found in favour of the
government's position in this case, and we are carefully considering our
next steps".

They continued: "The UK government's protective security system is
rigorous and proportionate.

"It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on
those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and
affect individuals' security."

Court of Appeal here he comes, but I don't think his chances look good.

Regards

S.P.

Am 28/02/2024 um 14:37 schrieb Simon Parker:
> Prince Harry has lost a High Court challenge against the government over
> the level of his security when he is in the UK.
>

I don't remember voting for him.

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 16:27 28 Feb 2024, Ottavio Caruso said:
> Am 28/02/2024 um 14:37 schrieb Simon Parker:
>>
>> Prince Harry has lost a High Court challenge against the government
>> over the level of his security when he is in the UK.
>>
>
> I don't remember voting for him.

That may be because you don't have a vote in this country.

On 28/02/2024 14:37, Simon Parker wrote:

Here's a copy of the judgment in case anyone is interested.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AC2021LON002527-RDoS-v-SSHD-7-Dec-23-Redacted-Open-Approved-Judgment.pdf

Not pleasant reading for Prince Harry's legal team, I suggest.

Regards

S.P.