LONDON (AP) — A lawyer for Prince Harry on Tuesday challenged the British government’s decision to strip him of his security detail after he gave up his status as a working member of the royal family and moved to the United States.
The Duke of Sussex has claimed his safety is at risk in part because of hostility towards him and his family on social media and the relentless media hunt for him.
Lawyer Shaheed Fatima said the group that assessed Harry’s security needs – known by the acronym of its former name, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, or RAVEC – acted irrationally and treated him unfairly by failing to follow its own guidelines, which the Application of a risk analysis required about the safety of the Duke.
“RAVEC should have taken into account the ‘impact’ that a successful attack would have on the plaintiff, taking into account his status, background and profile within the royal family – into which he was born and which he will have for the rest of his life.” said Fatima. “RAVEC should have taken into account in particular the impact on the reputation of the United Kingdom of a successful attack on the plaintiff.”
The three-day hearing at London’s High Court is the latest in a series of Harry’s legal cases that have kept London judges busy as he battles the British government and the British tabloid media.
Harry was not in court when lawyers made the opening statement at a hearing that was to be held largely behind closed doors to discuss sensitive security issues. The judge is expected to rule at a later date.
Earlier this year, Harry failed to convince another judge that he should privately pay London police to guard him when he comes to the city. A judge rejected that offer after a government lawyer argued that civil servants should not be used as “private bodyguards for the rich.”
Harry, the youngest son of King Charles III, said he did not feel safe bringing his wife, former actress Meghan Markle, and their two young children back to Britain and was worried about his own safety after he was followed by paparazzi after a London meeting fundraiser.
Harry’s hostility to the media dates back to the 1997 death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car crash as her driver tried to escape aggressive photographers in Paris. Harry, whose wife is of mixed race, blamed his decision to leave the UK on racist attitudes and unbearable interference from the British media.
The 39-year-old prince is challenging the decision by the group, now known as the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royals and Public Figures, which is intended to ensure his safety on a “case-by-case basis” after he moved to Canada and then California in 2020 . where he and his family now live.
“He should be placed in a bespoke position and bespoke arrangements made specifically for him,” said prosecutor James Eadie. “He no longer belongs to the group of people whose security situation is regularly checked.”
The committee took into account the broader impact that Diana’s “tragic death” had on the nation and placed greater weight in its decision on the “likely significant public outcry if a successful attack” on her son were to take place, Eadie said.
Eadie also said there is a cost factor since security funds are not unlimited. He noted that Harry was granted protection for certain events, such as his visit in June 2021 when he was followed by photographers after attending a charity event for seriously ill children at Kew Gardens in west London.
Harry said the committee wrongly rejected his security request without hearing from him personally and did not disclose the composition of the panel, which he later learned included members of the royal family. He said Edward Young, the late Queen Elizabeth II’s deputy private secretary, should not have been on the committee because of “significant tensions” between the two men.
The Home Office has argued that any tensions between Harry and the royal household staff are irrelevant and that the committee is entitled to its decision as he has given up his role as a working family member.
The case is one of five that Harry has pending before the Supreme Court.
The four other lawsuits involve Britain’s best-known tabloids, including a case alleging the editor of the Chron defamed him when he published a report saying he tried to undermine his efforts to continue state-funded security services to preserve, to hide. A decision in the case is expected on Friday.
Three other lawsuits allege that journalists from the Mail, Daily Mirror and Sun used unlawful means such as deception, phone hacking and hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on him.