Prince Harry had asked for his appeal against a High Court decision to be expedited, aiming for a hearing by the end of July. Nonetheless, a judge from the Court of Appeal has rejected his request for special treatment, indicating that he cannot bypass the usual process.
His appeal to challenge last month’s ruling, which upheld the Government’s authority to refuse him automatic police protection, was approved last week. The estranged member of the royal family sought to speed up the process due to concerns that the decision could impact how other nations handle his security arrangements.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex concluded their short “quasi-royal” visit to Nigeria in May, and they are anticipated to undertake several more tours soon. The Telegraph reported that Prince Harry felt drained by the prolonged legal battle lasting over two years. With the Duke’s team set to focus on other official duties starting in October, he advocated for expediting the legal proceedings.
Lord Justice Bean initially allowed the appeal but denied the Duke’s request for expedited hearings on the official issue. He pointed out that Prince Harry’s status did not entitle him to special treatment, stating, “It is rightly not suggested that the claimant is entitled to jump the queue because of his status.”
The Duke’s delay in filing legal proceedings, waiting 18 months after the decision, also undermined his claim to automatic security in February 2020.
In September 2021, Prince Harry pursued a judicial review based on five reasons. This decision stemmed from concerns about security that made it impossible for his family—his wife Meghan Markle and their children Prince Archie (5) and Princess Lilibet (3)—to join him on his tours in the UK. According to reports from The Telegraph, the Duke declined an invitation from his father, King Charles III, to stay at Buckingham Palace for similar security concerns.
Lord Justice Bean dismissed most of the Prince’s appeal points as weak but acknowledged that one ground could succeed due to the Royal and VIP Executive Committee’s failure to follow its policy. He also hinted that Mr. Justice Lane might have erred in ruling the Duke ineligible for comparison with other VIPs eligible for state security.
