Today, the High Court will hear Prince Harry’s case against the Home Office on his right to police protection while in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex is suing the department after being informed that, despite willing to pay for it himself, he would no longer receive the “same degree” of personal protective security when coming from the US.
The 37-year-old prince claims he wants to fly in wife Meghan Markle, their kids Archie and Lilibet, and other family members from the US.
But according to a spokesman, he and his family, who currently reside in Montecito, California, “are unable to return to his home” since it is so unsafe.
After receiving ‘cast iron promises’ that they would be safeguarded by specialized police, they returned last month for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
At a hearing in London today, Prince Harry’s attorneys will request from Mr. Justice Swift permission to conduct a thorough judicial review of the Home Office’s decision.
Parts of the court records in the case should stay private, the judge decided at an earlier hearing in March.
Harry is contesting the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures’ (Ravec) decision about his protection made in February 2020. Ravec received its authority from the Home Secretary.
He was informed that he would no longer receive the “same degree” of personal protective security while traveling from the US, where he and Meghan currently reside after abruptly leaving their positions as front-line royals.
This prompted him to mount the challenge.
Shaheed Fatima QC, the duke’s attorney, earlier stated in court that Harry believes the UK “is and always will be his home.”
The duke prefers to pay for the protection personally rather than requesting that taxpayers foot the bill, according to a spokeswoman for Harry.
The Home Office’s Robert Palmer QC earlier informed the court that the Duke’s offer of private finance was “irrelevant”
The police cannot provide personal protective protection on a privately funded basis, and Ravec does not decide whether to provide such security on the assumption that a financial contribution may be sought or secured to pay for it, according to his written statements.
The High Court in London considered a request from both parties earlier this year for some court documents in the case to be kept confidential during a preliminary hearing.
Mr. Justice Swift ruled that it was acceptable to request the withholding or redaction of certain documents, including Harry’s private witness statement.
“Some of the evidence relied upon concerns about security arrangements put in place either for the claimant or for other public figures in the United Kingdom,” the judge stated. For obvious reasons, such material typically remains private.
According to Mr. Justice Swift, a portion of his justifications for the ruling must also stay secret.
Editing information from court records, he continued, would “avoid the risk that putting information into the public domain concerning security arrangements made on previous occasions, and the general approach to whether and if so what arrangements should be made, may impair the effectiveness of arrangements in place now, or which may be put in place in the future.”
He continued, “Information about these matters would self-evidently be of interest to anyone wishing to harm a person within the scope of the security arrangements and would assist them in putting together previous practice with a view to anticipating present or future security provision.”
Mr. Justice Swift criticized Harry’s legal team for violating the document’s embargo after the verdict was made public.
High Court decisions are frequently given to the attorneys involved in the case in a draft version prior to being made public.
But Mr. Justice Swift remarked that it was improper for the judgement to have been sent through email to a non-attorney, calling this behavior “completely unacceptable.”
Shaheed Fatima QC, who represents the Duke, stated that although she and her staff weren’t sure if providing the draft judgment last week was a breach, they had made the decision to inform the judge on Wednesday.
The senior judge, however, referred to it as an “obvious violation” and questioned why it had not been brought up right away.
It should have been clear that what transpired was a breach, said Mr. Justice Swift. It should have been evident, at the absolute least, that it ought to be reported to the judge—me—as quickly as possible.
He later added, “It is also inappropriate that you appear before the court without expressing regret.”
Ms. Fatima claimed full responsibility and expressed regret “for not thinking through the emails before I sent them.”
At 10.30 am, the hearing for authorization is scheduled to begin.