Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, has expressed his determination to appeal the recent ruling by the High Court regarding the Home Office's decision to lawfully downgrade his personal security when he visits Britain. In February 2020, Prince Harry initiated legal action against the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) upon learning that the level of publicly-funded protection provided to him would be diminished during his stays in the UK. His legal team argued that he was unfairly targeted and treated less favorably in Ravec's decision, as Ravec operates under the authority of the Home Office.
During a hearing in London in December, the government vehemently opposed Prince Harry's claim, contending that Ravec was entitled to determine that his security should be tailored and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Now, after two months, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane has issued his ruling, rejecting the application for judicial review.
However, Prince Harry's spokesperson has announced his intention to appeal, emphasizing that he is not seeking preferential treatment but rather a fair and lawful application of Ravec's own regulations. The judgment, which the Home Office later expressed satisfaction with, coincides with a period of intense royal events and tragedies in Britain, including the sudden death of Lady Gabriella Windsor's husband, Thomas Kingston, Prince William's unexpected withdrawal from his godfather's memorial in Windsor, Kate's ongoing recovery from surgery as confirmed by Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace's announcement of Princess Anne's forthcoming visit to Dubai, and the King's reappearance after missing the service due to continuing treatment.
In response to the ruling, a legal representative for Prince Harry stated that he will appeal today's judgment, challenging the decision-making body Ravec, which includes the Home Office, the Royal Household, and the Metropolitan Police. While Ravec does not employ these specific labels, the litigation revealed three categories within the "Ravec cohort": the Role Based Category, the Occasional Category, and the Other VIP Category.
Prince Harry's appeal aims to ensure that Ravec applies its own rules fairly and lawfully, ensuring that he is afforded the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec's written policy. The appeal contends that in February 2020, Ravec failed to adhere to its written policy when excluding Prince Harry from a specific risk analysis. The argument asserts that the so-called "bespoke process" implemented for Prince Harry is insufficient as a substitute for a comprehensive risk analysis.
The Duke of Sussex remains hopeful that he will attain justice through the Court of Appeal, refraining from further comment on the ongoing case at this time.
In a judgment summary released this morning, the court determined that there was no unlawfulness in reaching the decision, emphasizing that it was not irrational. The court also found no procedural unfairness or unlawfulness on the part of Ravec in its arrangements for Prince Harry's visits to Britain.
In his extensive 52-page ruling, partially redacted, Sir Peter Lane remarked that Prince Harry's legal team had adopted an inappropriate and formalistic interpretation of the Ravec process. The judge clarified that the "bespoke" process designed for Prince Harry in the February 28, 2020 decision was and remains legally sound.
Sir Peter further noted that the decision made on February 28, 2020 was inherently forward-looking. He rejected the notion that Prince Harry should have received both an RMB (risk) analysis and a "bespoke" approach, emphasizing the weight of the defendant's witness evidence, which attested to the absence of irrationality or other unlawfulness concerning the treatment of other VIPs.
Sir Peter also highlighted the significance of a "draft options paper" provided to Prince Harry by Sir Edward Young, then Queen Elizabeth II's private secretary, on January 11, 2020. The paper outlined that the "level of protection is a decision for the Home Secretary, delegated to the chair" of Ravec. According to the court documents, Prince Harry's private secretary, Fiona Mcilwham, faithfully conveyed the security details provided to her by Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill to the Duke.
The judge concluded that there was no substance to the contention that the defendant had failed to act in a procedurally fair manner.
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, has expressed his determination to appeal the recent ruling by the High Court regarding the Home Office's decision to lawfully downgrade his personal security when he visits Britain. In February 2020, Prince Harry initiated legal action against the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) upon learning that the level of publicly-funded protection provided to him would be diminished during his stays in the UK. His legal team argued that he was unfairly targeted and treated less favorably in Ravec's decision, as Ravec operates under the authority of the Home Office.
During a hearing in London in December, the government vehemently opposed Prince Harry's claim, contending that Ravec was entitled to determine that his security should be tailored and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Now, after two months, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane has issued his ruling, rejecting the application for judicial review.
Sir Peter Lane's ruling, spanning 52 pages, addressed various aspects of the case. Regarding Prince Harry's private secretary, the judge emphasized that there was no reason to assume she was unaware of the security issues related to the claimant, stating that the evidence showed she was well-informed. The judge cited a meeting on January 27, 2020, attended by Prince Harry's private secretary, representatives from Ravec including Sir Edward and Sir Richard Mottram, and Prince William's private secretary, Simon Case.
The judge further highlighted that if there were any questions or concerns about Ravec, Prince Harry's private secretary would have likely raised them. The judge dismissed the argument that her six months in the role had any bearing on her understanding of the job, noting that her communications demonstrated a good grasp of her responsibilities.
In addition, Sir Peter Lane criticized Prince Harry's claim regarding the requirement to give 28 days' notice of traveling to Britain, calling it without merit. The judge explained that this requirement was in place to address specific concerns, which were later belatedly communicated by the claimant to Ravec regarding the June/July 2021 visit. The judge stated that the claimant had not provided any evidence to support the contention that this requirement was arbitrary or imposed for extraneous reasons.
The Home Office expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling and stated that they are carefully considering their next steps. They reiterated that the UK Government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate, emphasizing their policy of not providing detailed information on security arrangements to preserve their integrity and individuals' safety.
The court's ruling contained redactions to protect the privacy and security of individuals involved, in line with national security interests. The case involved confidential evidence on security measures, which required private proceedings without public or press presence.
Prince Harry's legal battles are not limited to the security case. He has also brought claims against News Group Newspapers (NGN) and Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering. In January, he withdrew a libel claim against ANL related to an article about his legal challenge against the Home Office. However, he settled the remaining parts of his phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers earlier this month.
Prince Harry, currently residing in North America with his wife Meghan and their children, announced in January 2020 that they were stepping back as senior members of the royal family. In a recent interview with ABC's Good Morning America (GMA), he mentioned considering becoming a US citizen and expressed his intention to visit the UK to see his family as much as possible.
Comments
Post a Comment