royalist
Want more Royals news? Sign up royalist A newsletter for all things Royal Family.
On Tuesday, a British judge’s ruling that Prince Harry could not legally challenge the government’s decision not to allow him to pay police protection costs while in the UK was automatically automatically It is a gross allusion to his whole claim that it should be protected. A legal expert said today that he had the same high level of police protection he enjoyed during his tenure as a royal.
The ruling comes just days after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were accused of exaggerating security concerns, alleging they were the subject of a “nearly devastating” pursuit by paparazzi on the streets of Manhattan. It will be another blow.
Tuesday’s ruling does not technically end Harry’s lawsuit seeking automatic police protection for Harry and his family in British territory, but Harry remains in protection, citing the “genetic risk” of his position. I think it should, but some see this as a signal. All of Harry’s actions are out of the blue.
“The lawsuit is now being decided,” Mark Stevens, a media attorney at Howard Kennedy’s firm, told the Daily Beast, always believing Harry was unlikely to win. But now, he said, he feels more confident about that view. .
Stevens said the state supports the essential argument that states can decide who to protect and how much, and police are not obligated to hire themselves.
The Home Office has argued that allowing wealthy individuals like Prince Harry to purchase police protection would undermine public confidence in the police and undermine their core mission.
But another hearing earlier found that Prince Harry could sue, arguing his core argument that he should simply be entitled to automatic protection in the UK. The case did not reach a ruling on Tuesday and is currently pending.
Tuesday’s ruling on safety rules marks an even worse time for Prince Harry after the couple were widely accused of grossly exaggerating the danger they were in when they were followed by paparazzi for two hours in New York City this week. would never have been put down.
Describing a “relentless pursuit” by a “wheel” of paparazzi, the couple said the incident was “almost devastating”, with bystanders and police nearly run over by the cameraman’s car.
Their comments were quickly met with ridicule, as the mayor of New York City, the New York City Police Department, and the taxi driver who drove them several blocks to change cars all downplayed the incident.
“Britain will continue to be Prince Harry’s home and a country where he wants his wife and children to be safe. Too much personal risk due to lack of police protection.”
— Prince Harry’s publicist
There was even unsubstantiated speculation that the Sussexes had brought up the case to solicit sympathy for ongoing actions against the Home Office.
Prince Harry has frequently complained of being harassed by photographers in the UK, and after he attended the unveiling of his car and was followed by photographers, his safety was questioned. It is understood to have filed a general lawsuit seeking a review of the Home Office’s decision to strip the A statue of his mother, Princess Diana, will be erected in 2021.
In a statement released when the action became public, Prince Harry’s publicist said: He remains sixth in line to the throne, has served in two combat missions in Afghanistan, and has faced well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats to his family in recent years. ”
“The UK will continue to be Prince Harry’s home and a country where he wants his wife and children to be safe. Without police protection, the personal risks are too great,” the statement added.
Neither Buckingham Palace nor a spokesman for Sussex declined to comment to the Daily Beast on today’s ruling.
Harry is currently pursuing multiple lawsuits, including a defamation lawsuit against the book’s publisher. daily mail It misrepresented him, he says, in an article about a lawsuit that took place in court today.
He is also suing Miller Group Newspapers and News Group Newspapers for alleged phone hacking.