Prince Harry, who appealed to the British government’s decision to demarge its police protection in the United Kingdom, will be set on Friday on the outcome of its appeal, according to the London Court of Appeal agenda.
• Read also: Harry and Meghan call to protect children from the dangers of social networks
• Read also: Second audience day on his security: the life of Prince Harry “at stake”
• Read also: Before the London Court of Appeal, Prince Harry reports on his security
The youngest son of Charles III and his wife Meghan moved to the United States in 2020 after breaking with the royal family.
They then lost the systematic protection of the police provided for active members of the royal family, paid by the British taxpayer. The Ministry of the Interior opted for protection of the prince on a case-by-case basis, when it returns to the United Kingdom.
Harry, 40, initiated a legal action in 2021 to contest this decision. After seeing his request rejected at first instance last year, he introduced an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The court will render its decision from 2 p.m. (1 p.m. GMT) on Friday. It was not specified if Harry, who rarely comes to London, but was there during the hearing in April, would be present.
In this case, “the life and security” of the prince “are at stake”, pleaded his lawyer Shaheed Fatima in the court in early April.
In written conclusions submitted to the Court, Harry lawyers reported threats to his security, notably indicating that Al-Qaeda had “called to murder” of the prince.
They also recalled that the Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan had been taken in “a dangerous chase” with paparazzi in New York in May 2023.
The subject is sensitive to Harry, whose mother, Princess Diana, died in a car accident in Paris in 1997, continued by motorcycle photographers.
The lawyer for the Ministry of the Interior, James Eadie, had defended the “tailor-made” approach adopted by the British authorities, arguing that it was “better suited” to the prince, who lives in California.
A large part of the hearing had taken place in camera due to the significant nature of the information on the security of the king’s younger son, and the threats to which he could be exposed.
