London (AP) – Prince Harry lost his complaint on Friday, challenging the UK government’s decision to undress it from its publicly funded security after withdrawing from Royal Family’s obligations and moved to the United States
The Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that a committee did not treat Harry unfairly when he decided to review her defense on a case -by -case basis every time he visited the UK
Justice Jeffrey Boss said in a 21 -page decision that the Duke of Sussex was feeling poorly treated and his lawyer made powerful and moving arguments on his behalf. But he said Harry’s complaint was not a legal reason to challenge the decision to refuse him regular security.
“From the perspective of the Duke of Sussex, something can really go wrong, since the unwanted consequence of his decision to withdraw from the royal obligations and to spend the greater part of his time abroad is that he was provided with a more and a smaller level of protection than when he was in the UK.” “But that in itself does not give rise to a legal complaint.”
The decision is likely to leave the Duke of Sussex with a big account to pay the United Kingdom’s legal fees – in addition to the costs of its own lawyers.
It was not clear immediately whether he would try to appeal the UK’s Supreme Court.
The decision upheld the decision of the Supreme Court judge last year, which found that the order to “order” for the security of the Duke of Sussex was not illegal, irrational or unjustified.
Harry made a rare appearance for the two-day hearing last month, as his lawyer claims that his life is in danger and the Executive Committee of the Royal and VIP has set aside for lower treatment.
“There is a person behind me who is said to receive a special process when he knows and has survived a process that is clearly a nine in every way,” said lawyer Shahid Fatima. “His presence here and during this appeal is a powerful illustration – it was necessary – how much this appeal meant to him and his family.”
A government lawyer said Harry’s argument was repeating his wrong approach, which had failed in the lower court.
“It includes a constant failure to see the tree for the trees, to improve proposals available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the solution, beyond context and ignoring the totality of the picture,” said lawyer James Idy.
Harry and his wife Megan, the Duchess of Sussex, gave way to their official roles in the family in 2020 because they did not think they were “protected by the institution,” his lawyer said.
After doing so, a committee of the Internal Office ruled that “there is no basis for publicly funded support for the security of the Duke and the Duchess within the UK.”
Harry claims that he and his family are threatened when visiting his homeland because of hostility, directed at him and Megan on social media and through ruthless hounds of news media.
As he lost his government -sponsored defense, Harry was confronted with at least two serious security threats, his lawyer said in court documents. Al Qaeda had published a document saying that Harry’s murder would delight Muslims, and he and his wife were involved in a dangerous pursuit of paparazzi in New York.
The 40 -year -old Harry, the smaller son of King Charles III, has stepped on the Convention of the Royal Family, taking the government and the tabloid press before the court where there is a mixed record.
He lost a related court case, in which he sought permission for private payment of police details when a judge denied this offer in the United Kingdom after a government lawyer claims that employees should not be used as “private bodyguards for the wealthy”.
But he won a significant trial victory in 2023 against The Daily Mirror publisher when a judge found that the hacking of the phone in the tabloid was “widespread and usual.” He claimed a “monumental” victory in January, when the tabloids of the United Kingdom of Rupert Murdoch made an unprecedented apology for invading his life for years and agreed to pay significant damage to arrange his confidential case.
He has a similar case that hangs against the Daily Mail publisher.