The Duke of SussexThe legal charge against a government decision not to grant him police protection will be heard in the Supreme Court today.
Prince Harry demands a judicial review of the decision to… deny him and his family safety when they step back on British soil, which he insists he’s willing to pay for.
He is challenging the “illegitimate” decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalties and Public Figures (known as Ravec) in February 2020, shortly after announcing he would be stepping down as a working member of the royal family. and move abroad.
Before joining the Queen at Windsor Castle in April and briefly coaxing his family for the platinum anniversary, the Duke had claimed he was “unable to return to his home” because it was too dangerous.
His lawyers have argued that his private security team in the US does not have sufficient jurisdiction abroad or access to the British intelligence necessary to protect him, his wife Meghan and their children, Archie, two, and Lilibet, one.
Robert Palmer, QC, of the Home Office, has described the Duke’s offer to pay for police protection as “irrelevant”.
In written comments, he said: “Police personal protective security is not available on a privately funded basis, and Ravec does not make any decisions about providing such assurance on the basis that a financial contribution may be requested or obtained in order to pay for it.”
The application was made last September, two months after the Duke claimed his safety was at risk when he returned to London to unveil a statue of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.
It is alleged that he was chased by paparazzi photographers when leaving a charity event.
It would be the first time that a member of the royal family has filed a lawsuit against the government.
The Minister of the Interior is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions.
Prince Harry argued during his interview with Oprah Winfrey last March that he had inherited a security risk by simply being born and should therefore be entitled to security.
Mr Justice Swift has already applied several redactions and confidentiality restrictions to the Duke’s request to protect his own safety as well as that of others.
The details of Ravec’s decision will not be made public.
The judge also ordered the removal of certain aspects of the evidence submitted on behalf of the Duke that were deemed irrelevant.
Separately, the Duke is suing the Mail on Sunday for what he believes was a defamatory article on the case, which would have caused him “significant pain, shame and suffering”.
The article suggested that he had tried to keep the legal battle a secret and that his PR advisers later tried to put a “positive spin on the dispute”.