New Delhi: Prince Harry faced a setback in court on Wednesday as his legal challenge against the UK government’s decision to change his personal security level during visits to the country was dismissed, news agency AFP reported.
In February 2020, the Duke of Sussex was informed that he would no longer receive the same level of publicly-funded protection when in Britain. Subsequently, he initiated legal proceedings against the government, contesting this decision.
High Court judge Peter Lane, in a comprehensive 52-page judgment, upheld the government’s stance, declaring the “bespoke” process implemented for Prince Harry’s security to be legally sound.
Prince Harry, along with his wife Meghan, made headlines in 2020 when they relocated to California, United States. Despite their move, Harry expressed concerns about security issues hindering his ability to return to the United Kingdom.
In a statement presented to the London High Court during a hearing in December, Prince Harry emphasised the significance of the UK as his home and stressed the importance of ensuring the safety of his family.
“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children,” Harry said in a statement, reported AFP.
Referring to his late mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car accident while fleeing paparazzi in 1997, Harry stated his reluctance to expose himself and his wife to similar risks.
“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too,” he said in the statement, as reported by the news agency.
The government’s legal representatives rebuffed claims of discrimination against Prince Harry, asserting that he was not treated unfavourably and that a thorough risk assessment had been conducted.
Notably, this legal defeat marks another episode in Prince Harry’s ongoing efforts to address security concerns during visits to the UK.
Earlier in May 2023, he was unsuccessful in a bid for a legal review regarding the government’s refusal to permit him to privately finance specialist police protection in the UK. The government argued that allowing wealthy individuals to purchase protective security contradicted the public interest in cases where taxpayer-funded protection was deemed unnecessary, AFP reported.