Prince Harry: Defeat before Court of Appeal

Prince Harry (40) suffered a further setback in his legal struggle for adequate protection for himself and his family in Great Britain. The British Court of Appeal in London dismissed his lawsuit against the downgrading of his security measures after leaving his rescue as an active member of the royal family on Friday.

The son of King Charles III. (76) had tried to contest a decision that reduced his level of security after he and his wife Duchess Meghan (43) had resigned their royal duties in January 2020 and moved to the United States.

One of the three judges at the Court of Appeal recognized that the Duke had brought “strong and moving arguments” and “it is obvious that he feels badly treated by the system”. Nevertheless, after examining the documents, he came to the conclusion that “the feeling of the duke’s complaint was not converted into a legal argument for contesting the decision of Ravec,” it said in his statement.

Ravec (Protection of Royalty and Public Figures) is the committee responsible for the security of members of the royal family, which acts on behalf of the Interior Ministry. It had decided that Harry’s security needs should be assessed from case to case due to his rare visits to Great Britain.

Prince Harry’s lawyers had argued that he was “selected for inferior treatment”. However, the court confirmed that there was nothing illegal in the way the decision was made.

King Charles’ younger son had previously stated that security concerns stopped him from regularly coming to Great Britain and bringing his wife and two children with them. Due to the judicial decision, his security status will now remain outside the automatic, high level of protection that applies to rank higher royal.

The recent legal discussion was about the subtleties of Richard Mottram (79 )’s decision -making process, the then chairman of Ravec, who reduced protection for Harry in 2020. An earlier court hearing had decided that Motram was entitled not to order the prince’s security circumstances in full at this time, even though the committee’s own guideline prescribed this.

The judge accepted on Friday that the Ravec chairman had not followed this guideline, but said that he had done this for a good reason – because of his and the “unsurpassed” experience of the committee in the field of royal protection. It was “reasonable” not to follow the directive and added: “It was impossible to say that this argument was illogical or inappropriate.”

Prince Harry had appeared in court for the appeal procedure in early April. He was not present at the verdict.