News broke in January that Prince Harry, who formally left his official royal role in March 2020, is pursuing a legal challenge against the Home Office, over whether he is entitled to police protection when he’s in the UK. Now, it’s been reported the Duke of Sussex sought to keep the move out of the public eye, but that it was brought to light after the Home Office argued for transparency.
According to the Mail on Sunday, High Court documents disclose that the duke pursued a far-reaching confidentiality order on documents and witness statements related to his case against the government. This was reportedly denied, however, after the Home Office maintained that ‘there must be a sufficiently good reason, in the wider public interest, to justify the departure from open justice that such an order involves’. The prince’s legal team ultimately consented for some papers to be made public, with the Home Office agreeing to conduct a ‘confidentiality exercise’ to decide what should stay out of the public eye, despite adding that this would lead to ‘an unprecedented expenditure of time and resources’.
The paper also alleges that reports last month, which stipulated that Harry had personally offered to pay for police protection for some time, but this had been denied, were inaccurate, claiming the duke’s ‘spin-doctors’ came up with the narrative. The Times adds, however, that it understands duke ‘challenges the accuracy of the report’.
The Duke of Sussex congratulated the Los Angeles Rams as he held up their newly won trophy
According to the documents lodged at the High Court last week, the prince did not make an offer to fund his own protection in his ‘pre-action’ letters to the Home Office, leading the Mail on Sunday to imply he expected the security to be taxpayer funded. The papers stipulate: ‘The offer [to pay] is now advanced in the Claimant’s witness statement... but notably was not advanced to RAVEC [Royal and VIP Executive Committee] in June 2021 or in any of the pre-action correspondence which followed’. Home Office lawyers reportedly stated, however, that he did make the offer in later correspondence.
Harry’s taxpayer-funded police security was taken away on his departure from royal life, on the decision of the RAVEC. After moving to the US with his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, the couple made known that they had pursued ‘privately funded security arrangements’, when then-president Donald Trump stressed his country would not finance their protection. The new court papers state that he does still have ‘exceptional status’ in the UK, however, and could therefore be considered for protection on a ‘case-by-case basis’, determined according to the nature of each given visit he makes to his birth country. The documents add that the duke’s subsequent offer to fund his own security remains ‘irrelevant’, since ‘personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and RAVEC does not make decisions... on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it’.
Robert Palmer QC, acting for the Home Office, has stated that if Harry loses the review, the government will ‘seek the costs incurred in full, including those of the confidentiality exercise’.
The news comes after Sunday Telegraph reported that Harry has renewed his lease on Frogmore Cottage and will continue to be allowed to deputise for the Queen. Despite now being based in California with his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, and their two young children, he is still technically eligible to serve his grandmother at one of her four counsellors of state, since he legally qualifies as being ‘domiciled’ in Britain because of his Windsor address.
The US tennis champ is a close friend of Harry’s wife, the Duchess of Sussex
Initial reports broke in January that the duke had applied for a judicial review, which is a formal challenge in the High Court against a decision made by a public body or government department (in this case, the Home Office). Harry argued that the private security team he uses in the US does not have the correct jurisdiction to operate abroad, and therefore is not equipped to offer the level of police protection in the UK. He stressed that he wants to be able to visit with his wife and their young children, Archie and seven-month-old Lilibet, who has yet to meet her grandfather, Prince Charles, or great-grandmother, the Queen, but that he wants to ‘ensure’ their safety.
As reported in the MailOnline, a statement issued at the time by a legal representative for the duke sets out his reasoning for the claim, reading: ‘Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.
‘The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.’
The 2 June promises a significant day for royal diaries
The statement also claimed that the duke ‘first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham’, but ‘that offer was dismissed.’ He was said to remain ‘willing to cover the cost of security, so as not to impose on the British taxpayer.’ It was added that his ‘goal’ is ‘simple’: ‘to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country.’
The statement also referenced an incident that took place in July last year, when Harry’s car was chased by photographers, according to BBC News. The duke’s legal representative stated that during ‘his last visit to the UK… – to unveil a statue in honour of his late mother – his security was compromised, due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event.’ It’s said he then decided to seek a judicial review in September 2021, after ‘another attempt at negotiations was also rejected… in the hopes that this could be re-evaluated for the obvious and necessary protection required.’ The statement ended by stressing that the UK ‘will always be Prince Harry's home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in’, concluding: ‘With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk.’
A government spokesperson responded by saying that the UK’s ‘protective security system is rigorous and proportionate’, adding: ‘It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements. To do so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.’
Former royal protection officers have said that to grant Harry police protection risks setting a standard for high-profile private citizens. Simon Morgan, formerly a royal protection officer and now a director of a security firm, Trojan Consultancy, told the Times: ‘This is nothing that the Royal Family can influence… It’s nothing that the Metropolitan Police can influence. If you went down a route of him paying for it, that sets a precedent. Who then becomes the employer? For example, why couldn’t Bill Gates get official projection if he offers to pay?’
Meghan previously said that the case ‘is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right’
Subscribe now to get 3 issues for just £1, plus free home delivery and free instant access to the digital editions.
