According to his attorneys, Prince Harry was not made aware that the Queen’s staff had a say in the decision to reduce his UK police protection.
The Duke of Sussex is suing the Home Office after being informed that, despite willing to pay for it himself, he would no longer receive the “same degree” of personal protective security when travelling 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.
Prince Harry is contesting the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures’ judgment from February 2020. (Ravec).
The Home Office is in charge of the organization. However, the High Court was informed today about how the Royal Family was involved in the choice of his police protection.
“He didn’t know at that moment that the Royal Household was involved in any way,” the duke’s attorney, Shaeed Fatima QC, said in court. “He was informed it was an independent decision.”
She added that at the time of the choice, there were “major problems” between Harry and Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary.
The defense team for the duke is attempting to make the case that the security measures outlined in a letter from Ravec and their application during his visit to the UK in June 2021 were invalid due to “procedural unfairness” because he was not given the chance to make “informed representations beforehand.”
Ms. Fatima claimed in written arguments that Harry was not provided with a “clear and thorough explanation” of the members of Ravec and those who participated in its decision-making, such as the fact that it included the Royal Household.
She added that according to his understanding, Ravec was receiving “full and proper communication” of the security-related concerns he had with the Royal Household.
Ms. Fatima claimed that because, among other reasons, “his offer to pay (for security) was not transmitted to Ravec before the judgment was reached,” he was “materially biased” and denied the chance to personally address Ravec.
He is unaware of any more information that was not properly or promptly disclosed to Ravec, according to what he told the Royal Household, she continued.
He was denied the chance to voice his opinion on whether Ravec’s approach was appropriate and whether certain people were involved before the decision was reached.
It is debatable whether Ravec would or could have made a different conclusion if there had been a fair process.
The Home Office’s attorneys contend that Ravec was within its rights to make the determination that the duke’s security arrangements will be evaluated on a “case by case” basis. They also contend that authorization for a comprehensive judicial review should be denied.
In written submissions, Sir James Eadie QC, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, claimed that any conflicts between Harry and members of the Royal Household are “irrelevant” to his shift in status.
“In his skeleton, the claimant now refers to objections he might have had to any part being played by Royal Household personnel in Ravec’s decision-making – allegedly because of personal tensions he felt with them,” he added.
The undeniable fact that the claimant’s status changed led to Ravec’s conclusion, but there is no bias issue, and any such tensions are irrelevant.
“It is noteworthy that the claimant cannot even now explain how a process of representations could or would have helped.”
According to Sir James, there is “no basis for the court to conclude that it would be anything other than highly likely” that the outcome of the case would have been “substantially different, or even at all different,” had Harry been given the opportunity to speak with Ravec before the decision was made.
Parts of the court records in the case should stay private, the judge decided at an earlier hearing in March.
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.
Harry believes that the UK “is and always will be his home,” Ms. Fatima previously said to the court.
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 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 said, “Information regarding these items would self-evidently be of interest to someone seeking to damage a person within the area of the security arrangements and would assist them in putting together previous practice with a view to anticipating existing 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 a “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.”
If permission is granted for a full hearing, Mr. Justice Swift stated that he will do so in writing at a later time.
The UK Government’s protective security system is strict and proportional, according to a representative for the government.
We have a long-standing policy of not disclosing specifics about these arrangements since doing so may jeopardize their integrity and jeopardize people’s security.
To remark on ongoing legal processes would not be proper.