Friday Prince Harry lost his legal battle to modifications in his security protocols implemented by the British government in response to his decision to resign from royal responsibilities with American bride Meghan.
The younger son of King Charles, Harry had sought to reverse a Home Office judgment that concluded in February 2020 he would not automatically receive personal police security while in Britain.
Three senior Court of Appeal justices maintained that, although Harry rightly felt offended, that did not constitute an error of law in the decision last year; the High Court in London said the decision was lawful.
Declaring he was “devastated” to lose his appeal, Prince Harry told the BBC he would “struggle to forgive” the ruling and could not securely bring his family to Britain.
In an interview, the prince claims King Charles avoids talking to him; ruling out going back to Britain.
Harry, who currently resides in California with Meghan and their two children, told the BBC, ” Obviously, pretty gutted about the decision.”
Judge Geoffrey Vos said Harry’s attorney had presented “powerful and moving arguments” on the effects of the ruling on his security.
Harry claimed in the BBC interview that King Charles does not talk to him and that he cannot bring his family to reside in Britain. He said: “My status hasn’t changed it cannot change. I cannot avoid that; I am who I am and I participate in what I am part of. Harry insisted he wanted to be reunited with his family, but “security was used as leverage” to try and keep him and Meghan within the royal fold.
“What I’m struggling to forgive, and what I will probably always struggle to forgive, is that a decision made in 2020 that affects my every single day and that is knowingly putting my every single day and my family in harm’s way,” he said in the interview from California.
Regarding Harry’s court case, Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”
Although Harry’s counsel had presented “powerful and moving arguments” on the effects of the security modification, Judge Geoffrey Vos noted that this did not render the alteration illegal.
Harry, 40, went to two days of hearings in April; his counsel informed the court he had been picked out for different, unfair and inferior treatment.
“Life at jeopardy”
Citing that al Qaeda had lately demanded Harry’s murder and that he and Meghan had been involved in “a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City,” his lawyer Shaheed Fatima said “life was at stake.” From a security assessment standpoint, the government’s legal experts found, the custom arrangement for the prince had favorable benefits.
