Prince Harry said the decision not to provide his family with police protection was made under the influence of an aide with whom he had tensions, a court heard today.
The Duke of Sussex is embroiled in legal battle over… does not feel safe bringing his family to the UK.
London‘s Supreme Court heard how Harry wants to pay for police protection from Met, but the police and government claim they are not “rental weapons.”
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) ruled that Harry would no longer receive “the same degree” of protection by February 2020.
It was decided that the Sussex family’s security arrangements would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
But Harry’s lawyers are now pushing for a judicial review.
They argued today that Ravec’s decision should be deemed invalid due to “procedural unfairness” caused by the involvement of the Royal Household.
They said: ‘[Harry] didn’t know at the time that the Royal House was involved, he was told it was an independent decision.’
The Duke’s team believe this is relevant as there were “significant tensions” between him and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young.
Harry said he believes his arguments about his safety, which were passed through the Royal Household, had not been “completely and correctly communicated to Ravec.”
For example, the Duke believes that Ravoc was not informed of his offer to pay for the security himself before the decision was made.
The lawyers said: “It is arguable that if there had been a fair trial, Ravec would or could have come to a different decision.”
Conversely, interior ministry lawyers said there was “no bias and such tensions are irrelevant to the undisputed fact of the plaintiff’s change of status that led to Ravec’s decision.”
Robert Palmer, QC, of the Home Office, previously told the court that the Duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant.”
In written comments, he said: “Police personal protective security is not available on a privately funded basis, and Ravec makes no decisions about providing such assurance on the basis that a financial contribution could be requested or obtained to to pay for it.’
Contact our news team by sending an email to: [email protected]†
For more stories like this, check our news page†