Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, has made a bold move by demanding to know the identities of those responsible for reducing his security level in a recent court battle.
Court records unveiled that Prince Harry explicitly requested the names of individuals behind the decision to lower the protection provided by the Home Office Police.
The latest developments come in the wake of Prince Harry’s unsuccessful appeal before the Supreme Court regarding the security measures during his visit to the United Kingdom.
In a detailed 52-page ruling, it was disclosed that Prince Harry adamantly sought to uncover the individuals accountable for diminishing the security protection provided by the Home Office Police.
He specifically urged the judge to reveal the person’s identity, emphasizing the need for transparency in the decision-making process.
Despite his efforts to challenge the ruling that resulted in the downgrade of his security status following his withdrawal from royal duties alongside his wife, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry faced a setback as Sir Peter Lane dismissed his case.
The court documents further highlighted Prince Harry’s stance on the matter, where he expressed feeling unfairly treated due to alterations in his security arrangements despite facing potential security threats.
His legal team emphasized that Prince Harry was not seeking preferential treatment but rather aiming for equitable consideration, as stated in a report by the Daily Mail.
Additionally, it was noted that the Duke of Sussex intends to pursue an appeal against the ruling, underscoring his commitment to addressing the security concerns raised.
Upon stepping down from his role within the Royal Family and relocating to the United States, Prince Harry no longer received automatic entitlement to the same level of police protection traditionally extended to the royal household.
Instead, his security provisions were determined on a case-by-case basis, aligning with the approach adopted for other prominent visitors to the UK.
Sir Peter’s assessment concluded that the decision to review security protocols was lawful, emphasizing the justification for any deviations from standard procedures.