The British government ceased providing security for Harry, the younger son of King Charles III, and his wife, former actress Meghan Markle, after they stepped back from their royal duties and relocated to California in 2020. Subsequently, the government turned down Harry's offer to finance his own protection when he visits his home country.
During the court proceedings, a government lawyer argued against the idea of hiring "police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy." Justice Martin Chamberlain concurred with the government's stance, stating that the denial of the Duke of Sussex's request to employ police bodyguards at his own expense was neither "incoherent nor illogical." He emphasized the distinction between providing private security for an individual and utilizing police as security personnel for sporting and other public events.
Chamberlain further elaborated on the potential implications, expressing concerns about the strain on police resources, the establishment of a precedent, and perceptions of unfairness. He wrote, "If privately funded protective security were permitted, a less wealthy individual would feel unfairly treated, the availability of a limited specialist resource would be reduced, and a precedent would have been set which it would be difficult to contain."
Prince Harry has expressed concerns about his safety while visiting Britain with his young children, citing incidents where he was pursued by aggressive paparazzi after an event in 2021. Despite his loss in the bid to pay for police protection, there remains the possibility of a more significant outcome. Another judge has allowed his case challenging the denial of government-paid security to proceed.
In addition to this case, Harry currently has four other active legal disputes against British tabloid publishers in London courts. These cases involve allegations of phone hacking or libel. Next month, he is scheduled to testify in an ongoing trial against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, accusing them of illegally obtaining material for numerous articles about him dating back to the 1990s.
Judges are presently deliberating whether two other phone hacking cases against the publishers of the Daily Mail and The Sun should proceed to trial. The newspapers' legal teams argue that the claims were brought well beyond the six-year time limit. Harry's lawyer contends that an exception should be granted due to the publishers' deceptive practices, which hindered his ability to discover the hacking and other unlawful information gathering in a timely manner.
Furthermore, a judge is considering whether to dismiss Harry's libel lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday. The lawsuit stems from an article alleging that he attempted to cover up his efforts to pay for police security. The newspaper asserts that its claims were an expression of "honest opinion," but a preliminary ruling by a judge deemed the article defamatory.
