Prince Harry’s to discover outcome in security case – all you need to know

Published

4 months ago

May 2, 2025

admin

Prince Harry will find out whether he has won a Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements on Friday, according to court listings.

The Duke of Sussex, who attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice last month, is appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK.

The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and is one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.

So what is the case about, what has happened in the courts so far and what’s happening now?

What is the dispute over?

Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghan in March 2020.

Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.

But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.

He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.

The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.

“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.

“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.”

What happened in the Court of Appeal?

At a two-day hearing in April, lawyers for the duke said he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety, security and life are “at stake”.

Shaheed Fatima KC told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back” from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.

After Ravec’s decision, al Qaeda called for Harry “to be murdered”, and his security team was informed that the terrorist group had published a document which said his “assassination would please the Muslim community”, Ms Fatima added.

She also said that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process'”.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that Harry’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.

He said Ravec treats the duke in a “bespoke manner”, which was “better suited” to his circumstances.

Harry “is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec,” Sir James said, adding: “Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.”

What’s happened in court before then?

The duke filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.

At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.

In written submissions, he said: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it.”

He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.

The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”

The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.

He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.

The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.

“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.

“The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.

“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”

Prince eventually gets green light to appeal against High Court ruling

In April 2024, Harry was refused permission to challenge the ruling by the High Court, but was told he could apply to challenge it again directly to the Court of Appeal.

He did so, and in June 2024 the Court of Appeal said it would hear the duke’s challenge following a direct application from his lawyers.

Granting the appeal, Judge David Bean said he was persuaded “not without hesitation” that Harry’s challenge has a real prospect of success.

UK

Asylum seekers face being removed from Epping hotel after council granted High Court injunction

Published

1 hour ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Asylum seekers face being removed from Epping hotel after council granted High Court injunction

A council has won its bid to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at a hotel in Essex.

Epping Forest District Council sought an interim injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited.

A government attempt to delay the application was rejected by the High Court judge earlier on Tuesday.

The interim injunction now means the hotel has to be cleared of its occupants within 14 days.

Somani Hotels said it intended to appeal the decision.

Several protests have been held outside the hotel in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl and denies the allegations. He is due to stand trial later this month.

At a hearing last week, barristers for the council claimed Somani Hotels breached planning rules because the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel.

Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said the problem was “getting out of hand” and “causing great anxiety” to local people.

He said the hotel “is no more a hotel [to asylum seekers] than a borstal to a young offender”.

Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited, said a “draconian” injunction would cause “hardship” for those in the hotel, arguing “political views” were not grounds for an injunction to be granted.

He also said contracts to house asylum seekers were a “financial lifeline” for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers.

The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, Mr Riley-Smith said.

They were being placed there again in April 2025 and Mr Riley-Smith said a planning application was not made “having taken advice from the Home Office”.

At the end of the hearing last week, Mr Justice Eyre ordered that Somani Hotels could not “accept any new applications” from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had made his ruling on the temporary injunction.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

UK

TikTok and Instagram accused of targeting teens with suicide and self-harm content

Published

13 hours ago

August 19, 2025

admin

TikTok and Instagram accused of targeting teens with suicide and self-harm content

TikTok and Instagram have been accused of targeting teenagers with suicide and self-harm content – at a higher rate than two years ago.

The Molly Rose Foundation – set up by Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter took her own life after viewing harmful content on social media – commissioned analysis of hundreds of posts on the platforms, using accounts of a 15-year-old girl based in the UK.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

The charity claimed videos recommended by algorithms on the For You pages continued to feature a “tsunami” of clips containing “suicide, self-harm and intense depression” to under-16s who have previously engaged with similar material.

One in 10 of the harmful posts had been liked at least a million times. The average number of likes was 226,000, the researchers said.

Mr Russell told Sky News the results were “horrifying” and showed online safety laws are not fit for purpose.

‘This is happening on PM’s watch’

He said: “It is staggering that eight years after Molly’s death, incredibly harmful suicide, self-harm, and depression content like she saw is still pervasive across social media.

“Ofcom’s recent child safety codes do not match the sheer scale of harm being suggested to vulnerable users and ultimately do little to prevent more deaths like Molly’s.

“The situation has got worse rather than better, despite the actions of governments and regulators and people like me. The report shows that if you strayed into the rabbit hole of harmful suicide self-injury content, it’s almost inescapable.

“For over a year, this entirely preventable harm has been happening on the prime minister’s watch and where Ofcom have been timid it is time for him to be strong and bring forward strengthened, life-saving legislation without delay.”

After Molly’s death in 2017, a coroner ruled she had been suffering from depression, and the material she had viewed online contributed to her death “in a more than minimal way”.

Researchers at Bright Data looked at 300 Instagram Reels and 242 TikToks to determine if they “promoted and glorified suicide and self-harm”, referenced ideation or methods, or “themes of intense hopelessness, misery, and despair”.

They were gathered between November 2024 and March 2025, before new children’s codes for tech companies under the Online Safety Act came into force in July.

Instagram

The Molly Rose Foundation claimed Instagram “continues to algorithmically recommend appallingly high volumes of harmful material”.

The researchers said 97% of the videos recommended on Instagram Reels for the account of a teenage girl, who had previously looked at this content, were judged to be harmful.

Some 44% actively referenced suicide and self-harm, they said. They also claimed harmful content was sent in emails containing recommended content for users.

A spokesperson for Meta, which owns Instagram, said: “We disagree with the assertions of this report and the limited methodology behind it.

“Tens of millions of teens are now in Instagram Teen Accounts, which offer built-in protections that limit who can contact them, the content they see, and the time they spend on Instagram.

“We continue to use automated technology to remove content encouraging suicide and self-injury, with 99% proactively actioned before being reported to us. We developed Teen Accounts to help protect teens online and continue to work tirelessly to do just that.”

TikTok

TikTok was accused of recommending “an almost uninterrupted supply of harmful material”, with 96% of the videos judged to be harmful, the report said.

Over half (55%) of the For You posts were found to be suicide and self-harm related; a single search yielding posts promoting suicide behaviours, dangerous stunts and challenges, it was claimed.

The number of problematic hashtags had increased since 2023; with many shared on highly-followed accounts which compiled ‘playlists’ of harmful content, the report alleged.

A TikTok spokesperson said: “Teen accounts on TikTok have 50+ features and settings designed to help them safely express themselves, discover and learn, and parents can further customise 20+ content and privacy settings through Family Pairing.

“With over 99% of violative content proactively removed by TikTok, the findings don’t reflect the real experience of people on our platform which the report admits.”

According to TikTok, they not do not allow content showing or promoting suicide and self-harm, and say that banned hashtags lead users to support helplines.

‘A brutal reality’

Both platforms allow young users to provide negative feedback on harmful content recommended to them. But the researchers found they can also provide positive feedback on this content and be sent it for the next 30 days.

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: “These figures show a brutal reality – for far too long, tech companies have stood by as the internet fed vile content to children, devastating young lives and even tearing some families to pieces.

“But companies can no longer pretend not to see. The Online Safety Act, which came into effect earlier this year, requires platforms to protect all users from illegal content and children from the most harmful content, like promoting or encouraging suicide and self-harm. 45 sites are already under investigation.”

An Ofcom spokesperson said: “Since this research was carried out, our new measures to protect children online have come into force.

“These will make a meaningful difference to children – helping to prevent exposure to the most harmful content, including suicide and self-harm material. And for the first time, services will be required by law to tame toxic algorithms.

“Tech firms that don’t comply with the protection measures set out in our codes can expect enforcement action.”

‘A snapshot of rock bottom’

A separate report out today from the Children’s Commissioner found the proportion of children who have seen pornography online has risen in the past two years – also driven by algorithms.

Rachel de Souza described the content young people are seeing as “violent, extreme and degrading”, and often illegal, and said her office’s findings must be seen as a “snapshot of what rock bottom looks like”.

More than half (58%) of respondents to the survey said that, as children, they had seen pornography involving strangulation, while 44% reported seeing a depiction of rape – specifically someone who was asleep.

The survey of 1,020 people aged between 16 and 21 found that they were on average aged 13 when they first saw pornography. More than a quarter (27%) said they were 11, and some reported being six or younger.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.

UK

Ed Conway: Something odd is happening in the markets – with no compelling explanation

Published

13 hours ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Ed Conway: Something odd is happening in the markets - with no compelling explanation

There is one thing scarier than markets lurching around. And that’s markets lurching around without a very compelling explanation.

Just yesterday, the yield on the government’s 30-year bonds – the best measure out there of the UK government’s long-term cost of borrowing – closed at the highest level since 1998, not long after Oasis released the album Be Here Now. Indeed, the yields on pretty much all UK government debt has been creeping up in recent weeks, though not all are back to Britpop era levels.

Follow the latest in the Money blog

In some senses, this looks very odd indeed. After all, the Bank of England just cut interest rates. In normal circumstances, you would expect measures of borrowing costs to be falling across the board. But clearly these are not normal times.

All of which raises the question: is this a UK-specific phenomenon? Are markets singling out Britain for particular concern, much as they did after Liz Truss’s notorious mini-budget? Actually, there are more questions on top of that one. For instance, is this all about Rachel Reeves’s recent woes, and her need to find another £20bn, give or take, to make her sums add up? Are investors fretting about the Bank of England’s inflation-fighting credibility, given its cutting rates even as prices rise?

The short answer, I’m afraid, is that no one really knows. But a glance at a few metrics can at least provide a bit of context.

The first thing to note is that while government borrowing costs in the UK are up, they have also been rising in other leading economies. The UK, it’s worth saying, is a bit of an outlier with higher yields than in fellow G7 nations. But that’s not exactly a new thing: it’s been the case since the mini-budget. But the UK is a particularly ugly duckling in a lake full of them.

Indeed, look at other nations, and you see that Britain’s budgetary challenges are hardly unique. The US and France have ballooning budget deficits which are rising rapidly. Most European nations have pledged enormous increases in military spending to satisfy Donald Trump’s demands of NATO.

And over the Atlantic, the US administration has just committed to a sweeping set of generous fiscal measures, under its One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Even Elon Musk has voiced concerns about what this means for the deficit (which is set to continue rising ad infinitum, at least on paper).

All of which brings us to the broader, possibly scarier, lesson. There are signs afoot that while G7 nations could depend for decades on other surplus countries – most notably China and other Asian countries – buying vast amounts of their debt in recent years, that might no longer be the case. In short, even as rich countries borrow like crazy, it’s becoming less clear who will lend them the money.

That’s an enormous conundrum, and not good news for anyone.