Prince Harry loses the appeal on security protection while in the United Kingdom – my country

Prince Harry His appeal lost on Friday to challenge the UK government’s decision to strip his security from the public sector after he moved away from him royal family Duties and moved to the United States

The Appeal Court unanimous

Judge Jeffrey Foss said in a 21 -page ruling that the Duke of Sussex felt bad treatment and that his lawyer had made strong and moving arguments on his behalf. But he said that Harry’s complaint was not legal reasons for challenging the decision to deprive him of regular security.

“From the point of view of the Duke of Sussex, there may be a mistake that has already made a mistake, as this was unintended consequences for his decision to back down from royal duties and spend most of his time abroad is that he has been provided with a more detailed and general protection level,” said Fos. “But this does not in itself lead to a legal complaint.”

The referee is likely to leave the Duke of Sussex with a large bill to pay the legal fees of the UK government – as well as the costs of his lawyer.

It was not immediately clear whether he would try to appeal the UK Supreme Court.

The ruling supported the decision of the Supreme Court judge last year and found that a “detailed” plan for the security of the Duke of Sussex was not illegal, unjustified or unjustified.

Harry made A rare appearance of a two -day listening session Last month, his lawyer argued that his life was in danger and that the Royal Executive Committee and Captures had allocated him to the lower treatment.

Lawyer Shahid Fatima said: “There is a person sitting behind me who is said to have a specially dedicated operation when he knows and witnessed an inferior process in all respects.” “His presence here and throughout this call is a strong clarification – one need – about the extent of this call for him and his family.”

A government lawyer said that Harry’s argument repeated his wrong approach to the lower court.

Lawyer James Eddie said: “It involves a constant failure to see wood for trees, and develop the available proposals only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the ruling, outside the context and ignore the overall image.”

His lawyer said that Harry and his wife Megan, the Duchess of Sussex, retreated from their official roles in the family in 2020, because they did not feel that they were “protected by the institution.”

Going now

• Canada calls on King Charles III to open parliament in a rare step: sources

• Pierre Poiliener ride lost the highest turnout for voters in Ontario, data shows

After doing this, the Ministry of Interior committee ruled that “there was no basis for the security support to the public for the duchess within the Great Britain.”

Harry claimed that he and his family are threatened with extinction when visiting his homeland because of the hostility he targeted and Meghan on social media and through hunting that is uncompromising by the media.

His lawyer in the papers of the court said that since he lost his sponsored protection, Harry faced at least two serious security threats. Al -Qaeda had published a document saying that the assassination of Harry would satisfy the Muslims, and he and his wife were involved in a hunt of photographers in New York.

Harry, 40, the youngest son of King Charles III, cleared the royal family conference by transferring the government and the tablide press to the court, where he has a mixed record.

He lost a relevant court case in which he requested permission to pay the police details in particular when the UK judge denied this offer after a government lawyer argued that the officers should not be used as a “special personality of the wealthy.”

But He won a big victory Upon tried against the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper when the judge found that the penetration of the phone in the tablide was “widespread and normal.” He claimed a “huge” victory in January when the UK tablloids in Robert Murdoch achieved an unprecedented apology to reveal his life for years, and he agreed to pay significant damage to settling the privacy invasion lawsuit.

He has a similar case suspended against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

And copied 2025 Canadian press