Personally, I would like Prince Harry to drop his legal fight for police protection while visiting the UK, just because: A) it really is a fool’s errand at this point and he’s never going to win and B) the backstory is so g–damn complicated and it feels like we’re all bashing our heads against the wall, trying to explain how several corrupt public institutions work together to do harm and then cover each other’s asses. Suffice to say, Harry has waged a two-year battle to understand why his police protection was suddenly yanked in 2020 and he’s managed to put a lot of really shady sh-t about Ravec on the legal record. In February, he lost the case. Then in April, Harry lost his bid to appeal the decision to continue to refuse police protection to the Sussexes when they’re in the UK. I truly thought it was over, at long last. Turns out, not so much.

The Duke of Sussex has been granted permission to appeal against the dismissal of his high court challenge over a change to his level of personal security when he visits the UK. Prince Harry took legal action against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.

The retired high court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the duke’s case in February 2024 and concluded Ravec’s approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair. Harry then lost an initial attempt to appeal but was able to ask the court of appeal directly for permission to challenge Lane’s decision. He has now been given the green light to challenge at the court of appeal, according to an order by Lord Justice Bean dated 23 May.

In his 52-page partly redacted ruling dismissing the duke’s claims in February, Lane said Harry’s lawyers had taken an “inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”, adding: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of February 28, 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”

The judge said he accepted comments from Sir Richard Mottram, the former chair of Ravec, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry’s legal arguments in February 2020, he “would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons”.

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.

After the February ruling a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy. In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis. The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis. The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the court of appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

[From The Guardian]

Back in April, when he lost his first bid to appeal the ruling, the court said Harry was on the hook for legal fees in excess of $1 million. I wonder if that’s a factor here too – if Harry successfully appeals the decision and the February ruling is reversed, is Harry still on the hook for that money? It doesn’t really matter. As I said, the sh-t is, to use a Trumpian parlance, rigged. I’m proud of Harry for getting so much inside-baseball on the record, and it was a learning journey for everyone who followed his case. Incidentally, I have believed for some time that Harry wasn’t simply going on a fact-finding mission for himself and his interests. I think he was also curious as to what he could uncover about why his mother didn’t have any royal protection in the last year of her life.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.