
Details of the dispute between the Duke and the Home Office over his future security arrangements were disclosed in legal documents relating to Prince Harry’s libel claim against the Mail on Sunday, which hinges on an allegedly “false claim” concerning his willingness to pay for his own police protection in the UK.
Prince Harry was told to give twenty-eight days’ notice of his planned trips to the UK so that his security requests could be assessed, it has emerged.
The Duke of Sussex was informed that it would then be a matter for the Home Office to consider whether the requested security arrangements were necessary, following his decision to “step back” from royal duties.
A furious Prince Harry hit back, demanding that the Home Office committee responsible for royal security give him an example of someone with the same threat assessment as him who had received no security after leaving public duty.
He also criticised the arrangements for his family’s visit to Britain in June 2021 for the memorial events for Diana, Princess of Wales, describing them as “patchy, disjointed and inadequate”.
The Duke is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article published last February concerning his legal challenge against the Government’s decision to deny him and his family the right to automatic protection.
The article said he had tried to keep “secret” parts of his legal fight with the Home Office over his security and had attempted to “spin” the dispute in his favour by claiming he had offered to pay for protection himself.
The Duke won a judicial review against the Home Office’s decision to deny his family automatic security in September 2021.
A date for the hearing has not yet been set, but the documents released as part of his legal battle with Associated Newspapers reveal the bitterness of the dispute over security arrangements.
In a summary of his claim against
the Home Office’s Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public
Figures (RAVEC), Prince Harry’s lawyers state that he is “gravely concerned
about his safety and security during future trips to the UK” and that he feels
he has no choice but to take legal action “given the gravity of what is at
stake for him and his family.”
No comments:
Post a Comment