“I want this person's name”

entertainment

by Nika Shakhnazarova

Prince Harry demanded to know who was responsible for reducing his police protection when he and his wife, Meghan Markle, were stripped of security in February 2020.

On Wednesday, the Duke of Sussex, 39, lost his bid for taxpayer-funded British security protection for his family and will now have to pay out of pocket for his family's security when visiting the UK.

Court documents revealed that Harry even asked about the identity of the person who reduced his level of personal protection on home soil.

“I want this person's name,” Harry said. The 52-page ruling Published Wednesday.

Sir Peter Lane, a judge at the High Court in London, ruled that there was no violation of the law in the initial decision to strip the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of their security.

Harry is now likely to be forced to foot a huge bill to offset taxpayers' legal costs after he was unable to prove he was treated “unfairly”.

The exiled prince said he did not receive the “same degree” of protection after leaving royal life, and even compared his situation to the risks his late mother, Princess Diana, faced before her tragic death in 1997.

Harry told a hearing that security concerns prevented him from visiting his home.

However, Judge Lane said there was “no basis for this dispute.”

“The UK is my home. The UK is central to my children's heritage. This cannot happen if they cannot be kept safe,” Harry told the court last year in a written statement read by his lawyers.

He added: “I cannot put my wife in danger in this way, and given my life experiences, I am reluctant to put myself in harm's way unnecessarily as well.”

The court found that any departure from this policy was justified and that the decision was not affected by injustice.

In the ruling, the High Court judge criticized Harry's claim that he was entitled to a full risk analysis by the Risk Management Board (RMB).

“The plaintiff had no right to require RAVEC to initiate a new CNY operation in light of its changed status,” Judge Lin said.

“In determining what justice requires in this context, it is important to understand that being subject to RMB valuation is not a right or even a benefit. It is, as Sir James Eadie KC (for the Home Office) says, an analytical tool.

He added: “I do not consider that there is any procedural injustice that might invalidate the decision.”

The case was held private due to privacy concerns.