Prince Harry Loses Legal Bid to Pay for UK Police Protection
The London High Court ruled today that Prince Harry cannot pay for his own police protection while in the UK.
Prince Harry's police protection was withdrawn for him and his family—including his wife, Meghan Markle, and children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet—after he stepped down as as senior working royal. In January 2022, Harry said he was seeking a judicial review of the recision, saying he felt "unable" to return to the UK without police protection.
"Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life," a legal representative for Harry said at the time. "He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home."
The representative added, "The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in. With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk. Prince Harry hopes that his petition – after close to two years of pleas for security in the UK – will resolve this situation."
Today, however, that petition has been denied. The UK's Home Office argued that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) "considered that it was not appropriate to support an outcome whereby wealthy individuals could 'buy' Protective Security from specialist police officers (potentially including armed officers), in circumstances where RAVEC has determined that the public interest does not warrant that individual receiving such Protective Security on a publicly-funded basis."
Justice Chamberlain agreed with this argument. You can read the full case here.
You Might Also Like