The High Court In London Rejected Prince Harry’s Request To Pay Out Of Pocket For Police Protection When Visiting The U.K.
When Prince Harry and Meghan Markle decided to turn in their working royals lanyards a few years back and take refuge in Montecito, CA, USA all on their own dime thankyouverymuch; they also lost access to the U.K. police as part of their security detail when they return for visits. But since the two are now polarizing figures whose work is roiling the royal family across several mediums, they feel they’re in danger and still require that level of protection when on English soil. Back when THE QUEEN was still alive, Harry even offered to pay for it out of his Netflix-lined pockets so it wasn’t a burden on British taxpayers, but he was turned down. Harry vowed to take that decision up with the law and did; however, People reports the High Court in London just released its decision that Harry and Meghan will not have the police at their disposal when there, even if they fork out their own big-mouth bucks.
When Harry began this two-part battle against the British government back in September 2021, he said he’d pay the police from his own coffers since his safety had been compromised in at least one instance in the U.K. after the police were pulled from him and “in the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.” But, apparently, that wasn’t convincing enough for the High Court because yesterday they ruled against Harry and his wallet and in favor of the British Government.
Prince Harry has lost a legal bid to pay for his own police protection in the U.K.
It forms half of the Duke of Sussex’s claim against the U.K. Home Office over the removal of his taxpayer-funded police protection, which happened when Harry, 38, and his wife, Meghan Markle, 41, stepped back from their working royal roles in January 2020.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex relocated from the U.K. to California with their son Prince Archie, 4, shortly afterward and welcomed their daughter Princess Lilibet, 23 months, in June 2021.
Speaking at The Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday, Judge Mr. Justice Chamberlain announced that he would not give Harry permission to seek a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for his own police protection.
The second part of his suit relates to his belief that it wasn’t fair for him to be stripped of police protection in the first place, but that part hasn’t hit court yet.
The second part of Harry’s claim against the Home Office is yet to be heard in court. It centers around a July 2022 hearing where he won the right to challenge the “procedural unfairness” of the U.K. government’s decision to strip him of his publicly-funded protection.
During the hearing, lawyers for Harry argued that he was not given the chance to make “informed representations beforehand,” reported BBC News. A date for this hearing has yet to be arranged, added the outlet.
At that hearing in July 2022, the High Court in London heard that Harry and Meghan’s security had since been dealt with on a “flexible, case-by-case” basis. Backing up the point, his attorney Shaheed Fatima stated in court that “what flexible sometimes means is no security.”
But royal journalist/Duke and Duch of Suss honorary mouthpiece, Omid Scobie, tweeted that even though Harry’s reached this setback, he has avenues to continue fighting. Hopefully, no one breaks a necklace or dog dish this time.
𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓: Prince Harry has lost his bid to bring a second legal challenge against the British Home Office over his security arrangements in the UK.
This morning at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain refused permission for the Duke of Sussex to apply for a judicial review…
— Omid Scobie (@scobie) May 23, 2023
Stay tuned for the reveal of Harry’s iPhone video of that “nearly catastrophic” and contested-by-some car chase debacle when it drops as his Exhibit A for why he undoubtedly needs to tie up daddy King Charles’ police for hours on end so he and Meghan can pap stroll out the front door of an event instead of sneaking out the back!
Pic: PA Images/INSTARimages.com/Cover Images