Prince Harry’s attempt to file a second High Court complaint against the Home Office regarding his security arrangements while in the UK was unsuccessful.
The Duke had requested permission to file the lawsuit against the ruling that forbade him from paying for his personal security on a private basis.
His security arrangements changed when the prince ceased to be a “working royal,” prompting his lawyers to request a judicial review of the decision to reject his offer to pay for protection in the UK.
However, a judge decided not to permit such a hearing.
The idea of allowing wealthy individuals to “buy” security from the police had been opposed by Home Office lawyers.
The security conflict is not necessarily over as a result of the decision, though. The Home Office’s primary decision to deny Harry protective security has already been granted the right to a full judicial review. His attorneys can also challenge the decision from Tuesday.
The Duke is currently involved in a High Court trial in which he is asserting a contested claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for allegedly engaging in illegal information gathering.
Harry is also anticipating decisions regarding the viability of related legal actions against publishers Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN).
Additionally, a ruling is anticipated in the Duke’s libel case against ANL, the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday’s publisher, for an article about his case against the Home Office.
It occurs precisely seven days after a close call car chase in which Harry and his wife Meghan Markle were involved.
Following Meghan’s acceptance of the Woman of Vision award at the Ms. Foundation for Women’s annual gala on Tuesday night last week, the incident took place.
The spokesperson said in a statement: “Last night, a gang of highly aggressive paparazzi engaged The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Ms. Ragland in a close-to-catastrophic car chase.
“During the course of this relentless pursuit, which lasted more than two hours, there were numerous close calls involving other motorists, pedestrians, and two NYPD officers.
“While having a certain level of public interest comes with being a public figure, it should never come at the expense of anyone’s safety.”
In the course of the chase, it was alleged that several traffic laws were broken, including running a red light, driving on the sidewalk, using a cell phone while driving, taking pictures of the road while driving, and illegally blocking a moving vehicle.
According to law enforcement sources who spoke to CBS News, the police car circled the scene for about an hour in an attempt to fend off photographers. They next traveled to the 19th precinct police station of the New York Police Department, where they switched vehicles in an effort to flee once more.
Harry and Meghan’s account, though, has caused controversy.
Since the incident was made public on Wednesday, conflicting accounts of what Harry and Meghan’s spokesperson called a “near catastrophic car chase” resulting in “multiple near collisions” have surfaced.
The couple’s journey from an awards ceremony on Tuesday evening was “challenging,” according to New York police, who also noted that there had been “no reported collisions, summonses, injuries, or arrests.”
The spokesperson’s account was deemed “exaggerated” by the taxi driver who briefly drove them, and some of the photographers involved have disputed some of it.
The entertainment photo agency that shot the images, Backgrid, in California, announced on Thursday that it had received a letter from the Sussexes’ legal counsel.
“We hereby demand that Backgrid immediately provide us with copies of all photos, videos, and/or films taken by the freelance photographers last night after the couple left their event and over the following several hours,” the letter said.
The agency claimed to have responded in writing with the following statement: “In America, as I’m sure you know, property belongs to the owner of it: Third parties cannot simply demand that it be given to them, as Kings may be able to do.
“Perhaps you should sit down with your client and inform them that this country long ago rejected his English rules of royal prerogative to demand that the populace hand over their property to the Crown. We continue to support our forefathers.