Prince Harry Loses Appeal Over His UK Security
Prince Harry has lost his appeal to challenge the decision-making over his UK security arrangements. Judges in the UK's Court of Appeal today agreed with an earlier High Court ruling that the decisions made around his security when he stepped back as a working royal were not unlawful.
The verdict is a blow for the Prince and could have a significant impact on his decisions about bringing Archie, 5, and Lilibet, 3, to the UK. The last time the children visited their father's home country was for Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee in 2022.
Reading out the verdict today, Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos described the Prince's arguments as 'powerful' and 'moving,' adding, 'It was plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly-treated by the system. But I concluded, having studied the detail of the extensive documentation, I could not say the Duke's sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for a challenge to Ravec's decision.'
Harry first brought the case in September 2021 after a decision was made in 2020 by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) that when he stepped back as a working royal his security would be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Prince instead wants the guarantee of police protection and has previously said that he does not feel able to bring his family to the UK without this. He is unhappy about how Ravec came to their decision and has previously said he believes he has been singled out for "inferior treatment."
'From the Duke of Sussex's point of view, I said that something may indeed have gone wrong in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke and generally lesser level of protection than what he was provided with in the UK before,' Sir Geoffrey Vos said today. 'That did not of itself give rise to a legal complaint.'
Harry flew to London last month in order to attend the appeal hearings. He told the Daily Telegraph that he was 'exhausted and overwhelmed' by the process of this case. Parts of the hearing were held in private and the newspaper quoted Harry as saying that 'people would be shocked by what's being held back."
Today's decision was reached by three judges at the UK's Court of Appeal and the verdict was broadcast live from the court.
You Might Also Like
12 Weekend Getaway Spas For Every Type of Occasion
13 Beauty Tools to Up Your At-Home Facial Game
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court battles continue over Sask. Instagram account that made anonymous sexual violence allegations in 2020
In 2020, someone started posting on an anonymous Instagram account alleging sexual assault, harassment and abuse by men in Regina. While it was operational, the victimsvoicesregina account named several high-profile people, including a Regina city councillor, a musician and leaders in the non-profit community. The page was shuttered after legal threats from men who alleged some of the posts were defamatory. Five years later, a series of related lawsuits are continuing to make their way through the Saskatchewan court system. A May 8 decision from Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal ordering SaskTel to hand over identifying documents shows that at least one of those lawsuits may be close to identifying the two women that operated victimsvoicesregina. Mandi Gray is an assistant professor at Trent University who has studied structural violence in Canada's legal system. She said her research indicates defamation suits are increasingly being used as a tool to silence alleged victims of sexual abuse who have come forward to speak out. That has only increased since the MeToo movement in 2020, which sought to hold people accountable for sexual violence, Gray said. "There were consequences for many people who were accused of sexual violence and, as a result of the reputational harm that they're alleging, they have taken action," Gray said. "It is a lot of men with access to resources and power, like celebrities and politicians, but we're also seeing it among regular people, as well, as a tactic to silence and punish people for speaking about what had happened to them." WATCH | Lawsuits used to silence victims, says researcher: MeToo movement in Regina CBC has been able to confirm that at least three lawsuits have been filed against the operators of the victimsvoicesregina account. The plaintiffs include a Regina teacher, a man named Ryan Boldt, and someone identified only as A.H., whose lawsuit was referenced in the Court of Appeal decision. CBC has previously spoken with one of the two women who operated the victimsvoicesregina account. CBC agreed not to name the woman, who is a survivor of sexual assault. She launched the Instagram page, also known as Survivor's Stories Regina, in July 2020 in response to a CBC News investigation that uncovered numerous allegations of verbal sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour against mental health advocate and former Earls manager Jim Demeray, who said the allegations against him were "baseless and untrue." It was one of multiple similar accounts that emerged across Canada during the MeToo movement, which sought accountability for sexual violence perpetrated by the rich and powerful. The account was quickly shut down under threats of lawsuits against the operators. Gray said that demonstrates how defamation lawsuits are a powerful tool. "Even just the mere threat of a defamation lawsuit can often be enough to shut people down from coming forward and reporting, but also just talking about sexual violence more generally," she said. WATCH | $1M defamation lawsuit The decision from the Court of Appeal is tied to a June 2021 civil lawsuit by Boldt, represented by Madlin Lucyk of Nychuk & Company, a Regina-based legal firm. Lucyk declined to comment for this story. Boldt filed the lawsuit against three women — referred to in the suit as Jane Doe, Betty Doe and Sally Doe — and Meta Platforms, the company that operates Facebook and Instagram. Boldt alleges that Betty created a false and defamatory story about Boldt sexually harassing her. He alleges that Betty Doe brought the story to Jane Doe and Sally Doe, who administered the victimsvoicesregina account. On July 25, 2020, the account published the story without "taking any steps to verify" the accuracy of the story or the comments made on the post, the lawsuit says. Boldt claims he suffered $1,000,000 in damages as a result of the the defamatory post. He is also seeking punitive and aggravated damages. Since Boldt does not know the identities of Betty Doe or the administrators of the account, and requires that information to properly file his lawsuit, Boldt's legal team filed an application with Telus, Access and SaskTel. The application directed each telecommunication company to produce documents tied to activity from certain internet protocol (IP) addresses at specific dates and times, including account holder name, account holder addresses, account holder billing information, account holder email addresses, physical addresses related to IP addresses and any other identifying information. Although Telus and Access took no position on the application, SaskTel opposed the motion. The Crown Corporation argued that the documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege as they were in the possession of the organization's legal department and that Boldt had not established that they were relevant to his claim. In April 2024, a Court of King's Bench judge ruled against Boldt, finding that the legal confidentiality trumped Boldt's interests. Boldt's appeal of that ruling was heard by a panel of judges including Justice Georgina Jackson, Justice Keith Kilback and Justice Meghan McCreary. The panel found that because the Court of King's Bench judge failed to perform an analysis, and instead simply accepted SaskTel's assertions, the judge made a legal error. The court found that since SaskTel admits it possesses or controls at least some of the identifying documents and they are relevant to the identity of at least one of Jane Doe, Betty Doe or Sally Doe, they should be produced as part of the lawsuit. It also ruled that the information should be held by Boldt and his legal team "in the strictest confidence" and should only be used in this specific litigation. SaskTel did not answer whether it plans to appeal. In a statement, the Crown Corporation said SaskTel is committed to "acting in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including full compliance with court orders."
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Sir William Davis, judge whose unflappable wisdom proved invaluable at the Sentencing Council
Sir William Davis, who has died aged 70, was one of the outstanding criminal judges of his generation and one of very few to progress from the circuit bench to the Court of Appeal. As Recorder of Birmingham, Bill Davis had earlier been trusted with some of the most heavyweight cases in the country, including those arising from the serious rioting in the city in 2011, described by Davis as a 'wave of lawlessness' which required the imposition of 'severe penalties' to serve as both punishment and deterrent. Besides being well over six feet tall, Davis was remarkable for his unruffled authority in court, his entirely justified confidence in his judgment and decision-making and his sure-footed approach to the law. A superb and extraordinarily efficient judge, Davis never allowed his cases to overrun, maintaining complete control and a relentless focus on the relevant – apart from the occasional dry aside. Cases listed in front of him always took less than the time estimate, something only a few of the very best judges achieve – and he achieved it every time without giving the feeling that the cases were rushed. He was an obvious choice for the High Court bench in 2014, and seven years later he was promoted to the Court of Appeal. There he delivered several judgments of exceptional quality, particularly in sentencing matters, and was greatly valued by his fellow appeal judges as a source of wisdom, experience, good sense and humour – one of them recalled him as 'very, very funny'. Having been a judicial member of the Sentencing Council from 2012 to 2015, he became chairman in 2022. His customary calmness and measured determination was evident earlier this year during the council's much publicised dispute with the government about the proposed inclusion of ethnic, cultural and faith minority groups as a specific cohort in the list of those for whom a pre-sentence report would normally be deemed necessary. The issue arose after the widely reported remarks in the House of Commons by the shadow Lord Chancellor Robert Jenrick. He described the council's updated guidelines as biased against 'straight white men', and amounting to a 'double standard' and a 'two-tier approach to sentencing'. Other commentators subsequently suggested that the guidelines would result in a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' for certain offenders. Perhaps pressured by all this, the Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood asked Lord Justice Davis to remove the entire list of cohorts – which also included sole carers of young children and pregnant offenders – from the new sentencing guidelines so as to avoid 'impermissible differential treatment'. Davis declined to do this, explaining in a five-page letter to the Lord Chancellor that the updated guidance – designed to address the recognised disparity in sentencing outcomes for ethnic minorities – had followed extensive consultation; the pre-sentence report was designed, he said, to inform the judge or magistrate as to the 'nature and causes of the offender's behaviour' and it would not 'determine the sentence'. Davis added that 'if we had been satisfied that courts currently requested a pre-sentence report wherever and whenever one was necessary, we may not have included a list of cohorts.' Davis stood his ground in subsequent exchanges, telling Shabana Mahmood that sentencing guidance must not be 'dictated' to judges by ministers and adding that the Sentencing Council preserved the 'critical' position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing. 'In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state,' he said, 'the state should not determine the sentence imposed by an individual offender. If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached.' It was only when the Lord Chancellor persisted with a threat to bring in emergency legislation to overrule the council's updated guidelines that Davis agreed to suspend the implementation of the changes, albeit adding that the council still deemed the new guidance 'necessary and appropriate'. William Easthope Davis was born on June 20 1954. He grew up initially at Bridlington in the East Riding of Yorkshire and later Leicester, where his father, Professor Ralph Davis, taught economic history at the university. His mother Dorothy, née Easthope, was a Leicestershire county councillor. From Wyggeston Boys' School (the alma mater of Sir David Attenborough) he went aged 17 to Queen Mary College, London, to read law, graduating in 1974. Called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1975, he did his pupillage in London before being taken on as a tenant at 7 Fountain Court (later St Philips Chambers) in Birmingham. As a junior barrister he practised in personal injury and criminal cases on the Midland and Oxford Circuit. From the outset he was enviably unflappable and never lost sleep due to the stresses and strains of a case. He also had a very sharp legal mind, enabling him to quickly identify the main issues in each instance. After taking Silk in 1998 he concentrated on crime, mainly acting for the prosecution but also accepting a few briefs for the defence. As head of chambers from 2004 to 2008, he was noted for his selfless willingness to help colleagues, frequently putting aside whatever he was doing to focus completely on whatever was being asked of him. A Recorder since 1995, he was appointed a Circuit Judge in 2008. The next year he became a Senior Circuit Judge and Resident Judge at Birmingham Crown Court, where he remained until he became a Judge of the High Court, Queen's Bench Division. From 2016 to 2019 he was Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit, where he was very popular. Bill Davis put his dry wit to good use when creating the scenarios used at the Judicial College, where he was director of training from 2014 to 2019. In his role as a Privy Counsellor he attended the accession council of King Charles III in 2022. Away from the law, Davis was a passionate supporter of Aston Villa FC club and a very amusing after-dinner speaker. At legal gatherings he had an excellent line in ruthlessly funny sketches about colleagues which invariably brought the house down. But he was a far from loud character off stage and tended to keep his views on any given topic to himself unless pressed for them. He greatly enjoyed writing and performing in amateur dramatic sketches. He appeared at theatres in Leamington and Kenilworth, including playing the role of Basil Fawlty, to whom some felt he bore a striking resemblance. His wife Ginny, née Smith, whom he married in 1990, is a playwright and performer, and for three consecutive years Davis took August off to support her shows at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, appearing as an actor in one and serving as stagehand and handing out flyers for the others. He also appeared in a performance at the Old Bailey in Court Number One, playing a judge in a production of Learned Friends, also written by and starring his wife. 'This isn't acting,' he told a journalist. 'I just come in and do what I do on the bench.' Their daughter Rosie, meanwhile, played Pip in The Archers for several years when she was younger, and their son Ralph is a well-regarded professional actor who has appeared in a number of leading roles, including at Stratford and at the Globe. Sir William Davis, born June 20 1954, died June 7 2025 Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
How the fight against Labour's cruel child VAT raid continues
Those hoping for immediate relief from the courts in relation to the Government's imposition of VAT on school fees yesterday had their short-term hopes dashed. But if you read the judgment and examine what is going on in schools, the Government now has a right mess on its hands. The High Court rightly found that, for the 100,000 or so children in private schools with special education needs who are forced to move into the state sector because they have closed or their parents can no longer afford the fees, their fundamental rights have indeed been interfered with. However, it said that Parliament was entitled to do this because it has very broad powers when it comes to raising new taxes. In this case, what was being sought by the claimants was a 'declaratory remedy' which would have sent the legislation back to Parliament to resolve. So, what happens now? The Chancellor Rachel Reeves and beleaguered Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson are no doubt delighted that they have apparently won. But the truth is, like special needs children themselves, they are not out of the woods. They won by a nose and could yet lose in subsequent contests. The first thing to say is that the special needs system is in total chaos. Since the pandemic, there is a huge backlog of children who do not have 'statements', in other words official education health and care plans, who are in a queue or appealing at tribunals hoping to get one. Local authorities are understandably reluctant to award them, in part because of a questionable previous court ruling, which said they have to pay for taxis for special needs children to get to their school. If you talk to a taxi driver, many of them make a fortune providing this service which, in general terms, seems excessive and incredibly costly. Yet now, parents who previously were paying for their own children's school fees and indeed transport, have had it confirmed that their children have a fundamental right to an appropriate education and their legal claims against local education authorities have now been given additional force. It would have been cheaper and simpler if VAT had not been imposed on school fees and they stayed where they were. Second, thousands of parents were waiting for this judgement, having either given provisional notice to leave private schools or waiting to decide whether to embark on that costly journey in the first place next term. So far, 11,000 children have left private schools because of this measure. My guess is that twice that number, will now not turn up next term. Put all this together and the new taxes on education will raise very little money and might even lose revenue. The reality is that Labour have created a giant and costly mess. An appeal is likely. There is no tax on education in any civilised country and, sooner or later, we must hope that a future government will reverse this cruel and costly measure. George Trefgarne is a parent and supporter of the 'Education Not Discrimination' group Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
