Prince Harry in legal setback about security protection in UK
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$1 per week for 24 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $4.00 plus GST every four weeks. After 24 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.00 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
Monthly Digital Subscription
$4.75/week*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $19 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $16.99 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $23.99 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/04/2024 (540 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
LONDON (AP) — Prince Harry’s fight for police protection in the U.K. received another setback on Monday, when a judge rejected his request to appeal an earlier ruling upholding a government panel’s decision to limit his access to publicly funded security after giving up his status as a working member of the royal family.
The long-running legal battle began more than four years ago when Harry challenged the panel’s decision, arguing that he and his family still needed an armed security detail because of hostility directed toward him and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, on social media and relentless hounding by the news media.
But High Court Judge Peter Lane ruled in February that the panel’s decision, which provides for “bespoke” security on an as-needed basis, wasn’t unlawful, irrational or unjustified.
“Insofar as the case-by-case approach may otherwise have caused difficulties, they have not been shown to be such as to overcome the high hurdle so as to render the decision-making irrational,” Lane wrote in his 51-page ruling.
In most cases, U.K. plaintiffs don’t have an automatic right to appeal and they must seek permission from the original court before doing so.
The High Court said Monday it had rejected Harry’s initial bid for permission to appeal. However, he can now seek permission directly from the Court of Appeal.