Prince Harry has been given permission to appeal his High Court defeat over police protection in the UK, marking a significant development in his ongoing legal battle with the Home Office. The dispute originated from a February 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which determined that Harry would no longer receive the “same degree” of publicly funded protection while he was in the United Kingdom.
The Duke of Sussex’s legal team argued that this decision singled him out and treated him “less favorably” than other protégés under Ravec. Following the initial ruling, a spokesperson for Prince Harry stated that he was not seeking preferential treatment but rather “a fair and legal application of Ravec’s own rules.”
Despite these claims, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane dismissed the Duke’s case in February, stating that Ravec’s approach was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. This decision represented a significant setback for Prince Harry, complicating his efforts to ensure the same level of security he had previously enjoyed, he reported. daily mail.
However, a recent turn of events has provided Prince Harry with a new avenue to challenge the decision. Lord Justice Bean, on May 23, granted Prince Harry permission to take his case to the Court of Appeal. This move allows the duke to further challenge the initial ruling and argue his position that the security measures he has been granted do not adequately reflect the threats he faces.
The Court of Appeal agreed to hear Prince Harry’s challenge following a direct request from his lawyers. This upcoming legal proceeding will not only reassess previous findings but will also examine the processes and justifications behind Ravec’s decision to reduce Prince Harry’s security details.
As this legal challenge unfolds, it is likely to continue to capture public and media attention, highlighting the complexities of providing security for royals who have abandoned their official duties but still face significant public and private risks. . The outcome of this appeal could have broader implications for how security is allocated to members of the royal family who reside outside the traditional roles and duties of the monarchy.