Prince Harry has been ordered to pay around £1 million in legal costs after losing a High Court battle with the Home Office regarding the downgrading of his police protection. The decision follows his and Meghan Markle’s resignation from royal duties and relocation from the UK in January 2020.
The Duke of Sussex initially challenged the Home Office’s decision, arguing that the reduced security left him and his family at similar risks faced by his mother, Princess Diana, before her death in 1997.However, his efforts were deemed insufficient by the court. “I am in no doubt that the claimant’s submission that his costs liability should be subject to a reduction of 50-60% is unsupportable,” stated Judge Sir Peter Lane, dismissing Harry’s claim as “without merit.”
Sir Peter also rejected Harry’s application to appeal the decision, describing it as “frankly hopeless” and indicating there were “no compelling reasons” to reconsider the case. Despite this, the Duke may still approach the Court of Appeal directly.
The court’s ruling emphasized that the Home Office’s handling of Harry’s case, although flawed in certain procedural aspects, did not impact the overarching conclusion that Harry “comprehensively lost.” As a result, Harry has been ordered to cover 90% of the public’s legal costs incurred during the battle, which total more than £500,000. The government’s expenditure includes fees for barristers, solicitors, and court operations, a Daily Mail report said.
The legal proceedings revealed not only the complexities of managing security for high-profile individuals but also the personal tensions involved in such public and legal disputes. At one point, Harry inadvertently breached confidentiality rules during the case, which required him to issue an apology.
Despite the setback, Harry remains adamant about the necessity of adequate protection when visiting the UK, particularly if accompanied by his family. His legal team emphasized the risks involved without guaranteed security, reflecting ongoing concerns for their safety.
The Home Office expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision but refrained from further comment due to the ongoing nature of the proceedings.
The Duke of Sussex initially challenged the Home Office’s decision, arguing that the reduced security left him and his family at similar risks faced by his mother, Princess Diana, before her death in 1997.However, his efforts were deemed insufficient by the court. “I am in no doubt that the claimant’s submission that his costs liability should be subject to a reduction of 50-60% is unsupportable,” stated Judge Sir Peter Lane, dismissing Harry’s claim as “without merit.”
Sir Peter also rejected Harry’s application to appeal the decision, describing it as “frankly hopeless” and indicating there were “no compelling reasons” to reconsider the case. Despite this, the Duke may still approach the Court of Appeal directly.
The court’s ruling emphasized that the Home Office’s handling of Harry’s case, although flawed in certain procedural aspects, did not impact the overarching conclusion that Harry “comprehensively lost.” As a result, Harry has been ordered to cover 90% of the public’s legal costs incurred during the battle, which total more than £500,000. The government’s expenditure includes fees for barristers, solicitors, and court operations, a Daily Mail report said.
The legal proceedings revealed not only the complexities of managing security for high-profile individuals but also the personal tensions involved in such public and legal disputes. At one point, Harry inadvertently breached confidentiality rules during the case, which required him to issue an apology.
Despite the setback, Harry remains adamant about the necessity of adequate protection when visiting the UK, particularly if accompanied by his family. His legal team emphasized the risks involved without guaranteed security, reflecting ongoing concerns for their safety.
The Home Office expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision but refrained from further comment due to the ongoing nature of the proceedings.