London –
Prince Harry’s lawyers on Tuesday challenged the British government’s decision to strip him of his security detail after he gave up his status as a royal worker and moved to the United States.
The Duke of Sussex claimed his safety was at risk due to hostility towards him and his family on social media and the media’s relentless pursuit of him.
Lawyer Shahid Fatima said the body that assessed Prince Harry’s security needs (formerly known by its acronym Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC)) would be required to apply legal action. He said he acted irrationally and treated Prince Harry unfairly by failing to follow his own policies. Duke safety risk analysis.
“RAVEC is mindful of his position, background and profile within the Royal Family, which he was born into and will continue to have for the rest of his life, and the ‘repercussions’ that would result if the attack on the plaintiff was successful.” ‘ should have been taken into account,’ Fatima said. “RAVEC should have particularly considered the impact on the UK’s reputation in the event of a successful attack against the claimant.”
The three-day hearing at London’s High Court is the latest in a series of cases keeping London judges busy as Mr Harry takes on the British government and British tabloid media.
Prince Harry was not in court as lawyers made opening remarks at the hearing, which is expected to be held mostly behind closed doors to discuss sensitive security issues. The judge is expected to issue a ruling at a later date.
Prince Harry unsuccessfully tried to persuade another judge earlier this year to allow him to personally pay for London police to protect him when he comes to London. A judge rejected the request after government lawyers argued that police officers should not be used as “private bodyguards for the wealthy.”
Prince Harry, the youngest son of Charles III, doesn’t feel safe bringing his wife, former actor Meghan Markle, and their two young children back to the UK, and says he was chased by paparazzi after a trip to London. He said he was worried about his own safety. Charity event.
Prince Harry’s hostility towards the media dates back to 1997, when his mother, Princess Diana, died in a car crash while trying to outrun aggressive photographers in Paris. Prince Harry, who has a biracial wife, cited his racist attitudes and the intolerable intrusion of the British media as reasons for his decision to leave Britain.
The 39-year-old prince is challenging a decision by the body now known as the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royals and Public Figures to provide him with security on a “case-by-case” basis after moving to Canada and then California in 2020. ing. Where he and his family now live.
“He should be placed in a bespoke position and the bespoke arrangements should be tailored specifically to him,” said government lawyer James Eadie. “He is no longer part of those whose security positions are regularly reviewed.”
Mr Eadie said the commission considered the far-reaching impact that Princess Diana’s “tragic death” had on the nation and, in making its decision, considered the “serious social consequences a successful attack would have” on her son. He said he placed more emphasis on the possibility of political unrest.
Eadie also said there is a cost factor because the security funds are not unlimited. She said Prince Harry was protected at certain events, such as when he was chased by photographers after attending a charity event for seriously ill children at Kew Gardens in west London in June 2021. He pointed out that it is recognized.
Prince Harry said the committee unfairly rejected his security request without hearing directly from him and did not disclose the composition of the committee, which it later emerged included royal staff. Stated. He said Edward Young, a former private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, should not have been a member of the committee because there were “significant tensions” between the two men.
The Home Office insisted that any tensions between Prince Harry and royal staff were irrelevant and that the committee was entitled to make a decision because Harry had abdicated his role as a member of the family.
The case is one of five that Harry has pending in the High Court.
The other four cases involve Britain’s most famous tabloid newspapers, including the Daily Mail, which published articles suggesting they had tried to conceal efforts to remain eligible for government-funded coverage. This includes a lawsuit alleging that the company defamed him when it was published. A ruling in the case is scheduled for Friday.
Three other lawsuits allege that reporters at the Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Sun used illegal means, including fraud, phone hacking and the employment of private investigators, to try to uncover dirt about him. There is.
