Prince Harry loses high court security case and faces a million-pound legal bill. Since Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle decided to step back from their roles as working royals and move to California, their lives have undergone significant changes.
With Harry's desire to step out of the limelight, there have been stark alterations in the support provided to him and his family. The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravic) made a decision not to offer round-the-clock police protection to Harry and his family, a privilege typically afforded to working royals.
This decision was made due to concerns about safety and the belief that UK taxpayers should not bear the cost of his security. Prince Harry contested this decision, leading to a legal battle.
The judge presiding over the case, retired High Court Judge Sir Peter Lane, rejected Harry's plea and upheld Ravic's decision, deeming it neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. According to reports from The Telegraph, the judge ruled against Harry, stating that his lawyers had taken an overly formalistic interpretation of the Ravic process and that the decision made in 2020 was legally sound.
Consequently, Harry now faces an estimated £1 million legal bill following his defeat in the high court. Unless he successfully appeals the court's ruling, he will be responsible for covering his legal fees as well as the Home Office's legal costs. The government department has disclosed that its legal expenses had already reached £47,000 by October of the previous year, prior to the three-day trial in December.
In addition to this legal battle, Prince Harry also faces potential financial repercussions from dropping his high court libel claim against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, which could amount to £750,000. Despite the setback in court, Harry has expressed his intention to appeal the decision regarding his security. However, his actions have attracted criticism from figures like Piers Morgan, who has derided Harry for his alleged arrogance and failures.
Morgan questioned whether a non-working member of the royal family, who no longer carries out public duties or formal obligations to the British people, should receive taxpayer-funded protection equivalent to active royals. He asserted that the answer is self-evidently no, highlighting Harry's diminished role and his focus on personal endeavors rather than royal duties.
In response to criticism, Prince Harry remains resolute in his pursuit of reinstating his security detail, emphasizing his commitment to ensuring the safety of himself and his family during their visits to the UK. However, with legal costs mounting and public opinion divided, Harry's future endeavors outside the royal fold remain uncertain.
