Prince Harry was unaware that members of the Queen’s household were involved in the decision to withdraw his permanent security team amid “tensions” surrounding his departure from the royal family, a court heard.
The Duke of Sussex launched a legal challenge, claiming the decision was unfair because he did not know the details of how it was made and was not given the opportunity to make representations to the board.
A representative previously said he wanted to bring his children to visit from the US, but he and his family “can’t go back to his home” because it’s too dangerous.
In February 2020, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royals and Public Figures (known as Ravec) announced that the Duke, his wife and children would no longer automatically receive police protection when visiting the UK.
The High Court was told the Duke was unaware of the committee’s existence or that members of the royal household were involved and considered its decisions to be “independent”.
Legal documents filed by his representatives say there was “significant” tension between the Duke and the Queen’s private secretary Sir Edward Young at the time.
Shaheed Fatima QC, representing the Duke, told a hearing on Thursday: “He should have been told so he could think things through properly and make statements.
“Had there been a fair trial, Ravek would or could have reached a different decision … the role of the royal household as an equal partner in the trial was inappropriate.”
Sir James Eady QC, representing the Home Office – which is ultimately responsible for Ravek, said there was no grounds for injustice.
He told the court: “He [Prince Harry] he knew that his security status was being reviewed based on whether automatic provision should continue as he would cease to be a working member of the royal family, and that was enough to allow him to say whatever he wanted to say about this issue.
Sir James said there was no suggestion of “impropriety” regarding the involvement of the Queen’s private secretary or any other member of the royal family.
Harry and Meghan key dates in Megxit crisis
“No one was saying ‘you’re not going to get security’, the question was on what basis – would it be flexible or would it be automatic,” he added.
Sir James said Ravek had changed the security provision for the Duke and his family from permanent to “on a case-by-case basis” to reflect that he would cease to carry out official duties and become primarily a “private citizen living abroad”. .
He argued that although the Duke is still a public figure, he will no longer attend events in the UK “as the Queen’s representative”, so his entitlement to publicly funded security is different.
Ms Fatima said the duke had offered to cover the costs of police protection, but Ravek had turned down his offer in January.
Sir James told the court that there was “nothing illegal in the later decision that individuals should not be permitted simply to require security by paying the police”.
Mr Justice Swift reserved his discretion on whether to grant permission for a full judicial review to a later date, following a closed hearing on details of private communications and sensitive security material.
“I don’t decide where the claim succeeds or fails, I decide whether it’s moot,” he told the court.
Add Comment