The Duke of Sussex's claim that he offered to pay for his own police protection has been challenged, he's accused with not showing officials enough "respect". Photo / Getty Images
The Duke of Sussex's claim that he offered to pay for his own police protection has been challenged, he's accused with not showing officials enough "respect". Photo / Getty Images
The Duke of Sussex's claim that he offered to pay for his own police protection has been challenged by the British government, which accused him of not showing officials enough "respect".
As the Duke began legal action against the Home Secretary for refusing to provide him with police protection, lawyers for the government launched an extraordinary attack, claiming his offers to reimburse the taxpayer were "irrelevant".
Robert Palmer, QC, said that the Duke had "failed to afford the necessary measure of respect" to Priti Patel and a panel of experts from the police, Home Office and Royal household "as the expert, and the democratically accountable, decision-maker" on security and risk assessment.
In documents handed to London's High Court, Palmer also noted that the Duke still has a "form of exceptional status", whereby he will be given protection depending on the reason for his visit.
However Shaheed Fatima, the Duke's QC, said that the UK would "always be his home" and that he wanted to return to see family and friends, but did not feel safe.
Prince Harry is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to withdraw the police protection that he and the Duchess of Sussex enjoyed as senior royals.
The Duke argues that the decision made by Ravec, comprised of representatives from the police, Home Office and Royal household, was wrong as "he falls within the immediate line of succession".
In the case of "Queen on application of Duke of Sussex versus Secretary of State for the Home Office", he says that he should have police protection "on all occasions" in the UK and that he has even offered to pay for it himself.
In a statement released on behalf of the Duke in January, it was claimed that he first offered to "pay personally for UK police protection" for himself and his family in January 2020 at Sandringham, but the offer was refused. The Duke did not state who the offer was made to.
However, the Government said that the offer - which is now in his witness statement - is "irrelevant", as it "was notably not advanced to Ravec" when he visited in June 2021 or in any of the immediate correspondence which followed.
In any event, the court documents note, "personal protective security is not available on a privately financed basis" and Ravec does not make decisions on security on the basis of payment.
The Duke briefly returned from Los Angeles last year for the July 1 unveiling of the Diana, Princess of Wales memorial statue. The day before, on June 30, he met seriously ill children and young people at a party in Kew Gardens, west London. It has been alleged that his car was chased by photographers as he left.
Fatima said that because of the security provided to him on that date, the "Duke does not feel safe when he is in the UK".
"It goes without saying that he does want to come back to see family and friends and to continue to support the charities that are so close to his heart," she said. "This is and always will be his home."
However, Fatima was rebuked by Mr Justice Swift, who told her: "Can you just focus on the issues in dispute?"
The Duke is arguing that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his family safe.
Harry claims that he offered to "pay personally for UK police protection" for himself and his family in January 2020, but the offer was refused. Photo / Getty Images
But in his submissions, Palmer told the court that his "form of exceptional status" meant that the Duke is already considered for personal police protection when he returns "with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain".
It suggests that were he attending on official business, rather than in a personal capacity, the Duke would likely receive police protection.
The Home Secretary also warned the Prince that they would seek to recover all cost to the public purse from the case, as they were "considerably in excess" of those typically awarded.
The Duke also submitted his arguments in the case to the court, but they were confidential and therefore not made available to the press or the public.
Fatima had said that she wished to address why their arguments were being made in secret whilst the Home Office made its arguments publicly. However, she was told by the judge that it was a matter for the parties to decide what to release and that she should "move on".
It was one of a number of heated exchanges between the judge and the QC. At one point, Mr Justice Swift noted: "Court proceedings are not a platform for people generally to tell their story, rather it is the forum for people to resolve legal disputes."
The hearing, held largely behind closed doors, was to decide what material in the case should be withheld from the public on the grounds of national security.
The UK Police do not reveal the details of personal protection, as it is feared that if public it could aid terrorists or "hostile actors" launching attacks on public figures.
