Prince Harry's lawyer is challenging the decision made by the U.
K. government to remove his security detail after he stepped down as a working member of the royal family and relocated to the United States.
The lawyer argues that Prince Harry's safety is at risk due to the hostility he and his family face on social media and in the press.
According to Prince Harry's attorney, Shaheed Fatima, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), which evaluated Prince Harry's security needs, treated him unfairly and failed to follow its own policies regarding risk analysis.
Fatima asserts that RAVEC should have considered the potential impact of a successful attack on Prince Harry, taking into account his status, background, and profile within the royal family.
The three-day hearing took place in London's High Court, with Prince Harry absent. The judge is expected to deliver a ruling at a later date. Government attorney James Eadie argued that Prince Harry should not be treated as a regular member of the royal family whose security position is regularly reviewed. Eadie stated that Prince Harry should have bespoke security arrangements tailored specifically to him.
Eadie also mentioned the cost factor involved in providing security, as there are limited funds available. He highlighted that Prince Harry has been granted protection for certain events, such as a charity event he attended in June 2021, where he was pursued by photographers.
Prince Harry claims that the committee rejected his security request without giving him the opportunity to present his case personally. He also alleges that the composition of the panel, which he later discovered included royal family staff, was not disclosed to him.
Prince Harry specifically objected to Edward Young, the assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, being part of the committee due to "significant tensions" between them.
The Home Office argued that any tensions between Prince Harry and the royal household staff were irrelevant and that the committee was entitled to make its decision based on his relinquishment of his working role within the family.
Lee Sansum, a former bodyguard for Princess Diana, expressed his belief that Prince Harry should be allowed to hire his own personal security while in the U.K. Sansum emphasized Prince Harry's military background and understanding of security. He also acknowledged the risks posed by social media, stating that threats cannot be ignored and suggesting that Prince Harry undergo a security course to enhance his technical knowledge.
Earlier this year, Prince Harry lost his challenge to make private payments to the police for protection while in the U.K. He expressed concerns about the safety of his wife, Meghan Markle, and their children, Archie and Lilibet, when visiting the U.K. without proper police security. Prince Harry's U.S. security team does not have jurisdiction abroad or access to U.K. intelligence.
The government's lawyer argued in court against the idea of hiring police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy.
Login