During a visit to the United Kingdom yesterday, Prince Harry began fighting in the High Court against the government’s decision to deny him and his wife, Meghan, police protection.
He insists he wants to bring his children Archie and Lily Beat to the UK but does not “feel safe” under the current security arrangements.
However, he was told in court yesterday that his demands to allow 24-hour armed security payments when he came here from the United States were unreasonable because British police are not “rent guns”.
Becoming the first member of the royal family to sue the government, the Duke of Sussex claimed in the London High Court that he should be provided with armed taxpayer-funded armed guards.
Papers filed by his lawyers have called the decision to remove his security after Megxit two years ago “illegal.”
Harry’s legal team said he wanted to return to the UK to “visit family and friends”.
He added: “Most of all, this is his home and will always be.”
Harry, 37, is suing the UK over his decision not to provide police protection for himself and his family – for which he has offered to pay.
The court heard Harry’s claim that he had made the payment in January 2020, but the Home Office said it was only made last September.
Harry argues that the private protection team he pays for in the United States does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad nor does it have access to British intelligence.
But Home Office lawyers said the Metropolitan Police’s highly trained security officers were “not guns for rent” and accused them of “lack of respect.”
Martyr Fatima QC, a human rights lawyer working for the Duke, said: “This claim is about the fact that the plaintiff is in the UK in June 2021 in view of the security measures imposed on him. He does not feel safe and will continue to do so.
“Without saying that he wants to return to visit family and friends and continue to support charities that are very close to his heart.”
Harry is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, and is part of the protection of royalties and public figures.
Most read in the Scottish Sun.
But for the Home Office, Robert Palmer QC told the court that Duke could not claim police protection and that his offer of private funding was “irrelevant.”
He said: “Personal security protection provided by the police is not available on the basis of private funding, and Ravec does not make decisions about the provision of such protection on the grounds that there is no financial support for its payment. Cooperation can be sought or obtained. “
پڑھ Read our Royal Family Live Blog for the latest updates
He added that Revek’s decision follows Harry’s “very famous decision” to step down from his role as a working member of the royal family to raise private income and move abroad.
Mr Palmer said police could protect Harry during visits on a case-by-case basis.
And he insisted that the Duke did not initially offer to fund his own security – although he did later.
Mr Palmer later said that the Duke had failed to tolerate the necessary measure of respect for the Home Secretary and Revek as an “expert on security and related risk assessment matters, and a democratically accountable, decision-maker”. Is.”
It mentions how, after leaving for the United States, Harry briefly returned last year to unveil a memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales.
He had earlier claimed that he had offered to pay security at his infamous Sandringham summit during the Magazine.
Last September, Prince Harry filed a 33-page statement of three witnesses, in addition to the facts and grounds, which was all confidential.
The Home Office responded by saying the documents were the first time Duke had offered to pay for private security.
A spokesman for Harry then claimed in a statement last month: “The Duke first made a personal payment in January 2020 in Sandringham to protect himself and his family from UK police. Rejected. “
Yesterday’s hearing was held to discuss the confidential aspects of the royal family’s security case.
The case was kept behind closed doors for a long time.
Harry had requested that the entire case be kept secret, but the Home Office resisted, citing “open justice” principles.
Mr Justice Swift will later rule on the amended and confidential sections of the case.
A full hearing date has not yet been set.
Harry was not in court, but was represented by a Shellings barrister and legal team.
That included Jenny Aafia, who last year spoke out in defense of Meghan’s bullying allegations in the BBC documentary The Princess and the Press.
The Home Office team consisted of two barristers and six lawyers. Harry plans to return to the UK next month for the Thanksgiving service for Prince Philip and for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June.
Security for wife Meghan, 40, and herself was a major issue when the couple announced their intention to resign in January 2020.
He was later forced to reveal that he had made “privately funded security arrangements” to travel to California when then-President Donald Trump said the United States would not pay for his protection.