google.com, pub-3998556743903564, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0 Prince Harry Loses Legal Bid Over UK Taxpayer-Funded Security

Prince Harry Loses Legal Bid Over UK Taxpayer-Funded Security

Prince Harry has lost his appeal against the British government's decision to withdraw his publicly funded security detail, a ruling that underscores the constitutional principle that royal privilege does not necessarily endure once official duties cease.

In a unanimous ruling on Friday, the Court of Appeal found that the committee responsible for assessing the Duke of Sussex’s protection, known as RAVEC (the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures), had acted lawfully in choosing to evaluate his security on a case-by-case basis. The decision follows Harry’s departure from royal duties and relocation to California in 2020.

Justice Geoffrey Vos, delivering the 21-page judgment, acknowledged that Prince Harry felt aggrieved by the arrangement and praised his legal team for mounting a “powerful and moving” argument. However, Vos made clear that the prince’s emotional dissatisfaction did not equate to a legal wrong. “From the Duke of Sussex’s point of view, something may indeed have gone wrong,” Vos wrote, noting that Harry now receives “a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK.” Still, he concluded, “That does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.”

The judgment effectively affirms an earlier High Court ruling, which found the tailored approach to the prince’s security to be neither unlawful nor irrational.

The decision represents a blow to the Duke’s efforts to secure permanent taxpayer-funded protection for visits to Britain, even though he no longer performs royal functions. It also underscores the British state’s longstanding position that such privileges are reserved for working royals and high-level officials with current public duties.

It remains unclear whether Prince Harry will seek to take the case to the Supreme Court, though the legal and financial stakes are significant. The court’s decision leaves him liable not only for his own legal fees but also for the government’s costs, likely running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Since stepping back from royal duties and moving to Montecito with his wife, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry has frequently cited concerns over his family’s safety when returning to the UK. His legal challenge was in part a broader attempt to retain elements of royal security status in absentia, an argument now firmly rebuffed by Britain’s courts.

The ruling is also a reminder of the often fraught relationship between the Sussexes and the British establishment, which remains wary of granting special dispensations to royals who have chosen to leave the fold.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post