The alleged dispute and resulting coverage came earlier this year when it was announced Prince Harry allegedly would be asking for security in the U.K., a move that a former royal protection officer said was a mistake. A representative of Harry claimed, “While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the royal family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K.” (per the Royal Observer).
In February, Mail on Sunday and its online platform the Daily Mail published an article alleging that “Prince Harry tried to keep details of his legal battle to reinstate his police protection secret from the public.” Harry’s representation says that the story negatively and falsely mischaracterized him, claiming he’d “improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion by authori[z]ing his ‘spin doctors’ to put out false and misleading statements about his willingness to pay for police protection immediately after the Mail on Sunday had revealed he was suing the government” (per the BBC).
ANL is disputing the claim, but it is now in the hands of Judge Justice Nicklin to interpret the article’s language as defamatory and “a statement of fact or opinion.”
