Prince Harry loses the legal battle against the British Government over the withdrawal of his bodyguards

The ties that unite Henry of England with his country are increasingly more judicial than family.

The Duke of Sussex has, with varying success, several lawsuits pending in the British courts, against the media and against the Government itself.

This Wednesday, Judge Peter Lane, of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, dealt a blow to the son of King Charles III in the case between him and the Ministry of the Interior over the withdrawal of the bodyguard service.

The judge, who held the hearing behind closed doors last December, ruled in favor of the Government's decision to withdraw Prince Henry from the permanent security service he enjoyed in the United Kingdom.

The Executive Committee for Royalty and VIP Authorities (Ravec, in its acronym in English), the joint body of the Ministry of the Interior and the Metropolitan Police, ended these police benefits from the moment the Duke of Sussex and his wife, Meghan Markle, announced that they would stop carrying out public activities on behalf of the royal house, at the beginning of 2020. Two years later, Henry of England claimed his right to fight in court a decision that he considered unfair, both in procedure and content. , and justice allowed him, in part, to continue with his battle.

More information

Prince Henry talks about the health of his father, Charles III, and opens the door to family reunification

Last December, lawyers representing the Home Office assured Judge Lane that Prince Harry could continue to enjoy official protection during his visits to the United Kingdom — the Duke of Sussex, his wife and their children have resided in California since March 2020. —.

But it specified that it could not be done permanently and automatically, but rather “with customized preparations, specifically designed for it.”

The Duke of Sussex even demanded the possibility of paying for police escort services himself, and his lawyers presented legal precedents to the judge to defend that option.

However, the British Government's legal team defended its refusal in court, arguing that it was not right that “the rich” could “buy” their security with the services provided by armed police officers.

Prince Henry lost the battle of that claim.

There was the chance that Judge Lane would rule against Ravec's decision, but it was just the opposite.

In a fifty-page ruling, the magistrate has accused the prince's lawyers of having interpreted the tasks and powers of the executive committee in a formalistic and inappropriate way.

They defended at the time that Buckingham Palace had participated in the decision, when the existing tensions between the royal house and the second son of Charles III were evident.

The judge recalls in his verdict that the palace's participation in Ravec's decisions is contemplated in its composition and operation, and has defended the offer of "tailored security" for Enrique as a "legally correct" solution.