Summary of complaint
We received complaints from people who feel we shouldn鈥檛 have interviewed Prince Harry, and that our approach to this interview, and subsequent coverage, was biased in his favour.
Our response
Our interview with the Duke of Sussex generated global interest and provided our audience with significant insights into Prince Harry鈥檚 perspective on losing his latest legal challenge over his security arrangements, and his relationship with the Royal Family.
Nada Tawfik鈥檚 tone and approach was appropriate to the context of this interview, which was conducted hours after this court ruling was announced. Nada gave the prince time to express his views while scrutinising statements he made. Nada asked the duke why the UK taxpayer should fund his security now he was no longer a working royal.
Our coverage of this story included the response from Buckingham Palace and the position of the 91福利社 Office. Our royal correspondents offered comprehensive analysis of the implications of this interview, examining claims made by the duke, and reflecting that there are those who disputed some points made by the prince. We also broadcast the remarks of Sir Geoffrey Vos, who was responsible for delivering the Court of Appeal verdict of the three judges.
We believe our interview with the Prince Harry was duly impartial and in the public interest, highlighting issues of importance to our audience.