On Wednesday, Britain's Prince Harry lost a lawsuit against the British High Court over security issues and plans to appeal. The decision, which involved sensitive issues for the royal family and the public, sparked heated discussions. During the three-year legal battle, the prince has disputed the downgraded security measures, insisting that he has been treated unfairly.
According to British media on February 28, Prince Harry objected to ** in court, arguing that his decision to remove British security after resigning as a working member of the royal family was illegal. However, High Court Judge Peter Lane's ruling held that the decision in February 2020 was in accordance with the law.
In his ruling, Sir Lane stated: "The Tribunal found that there was no breach of the law in the decision of 28 February 2020. Even if there is a procedural injustice, the court is unable to provide relief to the applicant. Because even if there is no such violation, the impact on the applicant will not be substantially different. ”
Prince Harry's lawyer argued that the decision violated the written policy of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royal and Public Figures (R**EC), saying the committee did not conduct a risk analysis before making its decision. "The R**EC chose not to follow its own written policy and therefore chose to apply a process to applicants that is far lower than the key safeguards contained in the written policy," she said. ”
The legal battle revolves around the decision of the Executive Committee of the R**EC, which sets out the levels of police protection for the royal family and other important figures.
During the debate, Harry's lawyers noted that R**EC did not conduct a risk analysis prior to the decision and accused the committee of violating its written policy on security decisions. "R**EC chose not to follow its own written policy," she said. As a result, the R**EC has chosen to apply a procedure to applicants that is far lower than the key safeguards contained in a written policy. This is the first time that the r**ec has decided to deviate from policy in this way. ”
Harry's lawyers also claimed that Harry was "individually selected" to be treated differently and complained that he was not allowed to participate in the decision-making process, while noting that there was "significant tension" with Sir Edward Young, assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, on the R**EC committee.
The Home Office said the committee responsible for overseeing the R**EC had the authority to decide on Harry's security and that its procedures were fair.
The defeat is the latest in Prince Harry's multiple legal battles. He has successfully cracked down on Mirror Press allegations of wiretapping and illegal news gathering, and is still in legal action against the publishers of The Sun and the Daily Mail. Last month, he dropped a defamation lawsuit filed against the Mail on Sunday over some reports of his security dispute with the Home Office.
At the same time, Prince Harry is also facing legal trouble in the United States. The U.S. Tradition** will claim that the Department of Homeland Security has given Harry preferential treatment to apply for a U.S. visa.
Donald Trump also told the Daily Express last week that if he is re-elected, he will not protect Harry and the Duke of Sussex could be expelled from the United States. "I'm not going to protect him," he said. He betrayed the Queen, which is unforgivable. If it were me, I would have left him alone. ”
Trump also admitted that he thought the royal family was "too kind" to him after what Harry "did", making it clear that he had no sympathy for the former working royal or his wife Meghan Markle.