29 February 2024 , 07:31
825
0
Court documents show that Prince Harry wanted to know who made the decision to revoke his taxpayer-paid security protection while home in Great Britain.
On Wednesday, the courts decided to uphold the decision after Prince Harry was granted an appeal in July 2022. The Duke of Sussex had his security taken away after he and Meghan Markle stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
In the 52-page ruling by Sir Peter Lane this week, it shows that Harry said: "I would like that person's name," about who was responsible for the security pull. The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) was behind the decision, but it seemed like Harry wanted specifics.
READ MORE: Seven bombshells from Prince Harry's security row - 'inappropriate' demand and mystery figure
Harry is appealing the decision again (Getty Images)The ruling also included the fact that Harry's private security in America told the High Court that the "paparazzi made [Harry] feel like sitting ducks" when he was at the Wellchild Awards in June 2021.
Kate Middleton swears by £19.99 rosehip oil that helps 'reduce wrinkles & scars'
Harry's legal team also told the court that Harry was worried for the safety of his children, Archie, four, and Lilibet, two, if they came to visit their father's homeland. Shaheed Fatima KC, Harry's barrister, told the High Court on Tuesday: "The claimant’s consistent position has been, and remains, that he should be given state security in light of the threats/risks he faces."
Harry might have to pay both sides' legal fees (AFP via Getty Images)The Government argued that Harry's security would be considered on a "case-by-case" basis. Lawyers for the Home Office said that the Duke wasn't a part of a group that had their "security position" under review on a regular basis.
Harry is planning on appealing the latest ruling once more. If he loses once more, he could be paying for more than £1 million in legal fees for both his team and the Home Office's.
A spokesperson for the Home Office shared a statement after the ruling was made on Wednesday. "We are pleased that the Court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case, and we are carefully considering our next steps. It would be inappropriate to comment further," they said.
"The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security," the statement finished.