LONDON (AP) – Lawyer Prince Harry On Tuesday, he challenged the UK government’s decision to strip him of his security details after he gave up his status as a working member of the royal family and moved to the US.
The Duke of Sussex has claimed his safety is at risk in part because of the hostility towards him and his family on social media and the relentless media hounding him.
Lawyer Shahid Fatima said the group that assessed Harry’s security needs – known by its acronym the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, or RAVEC – acted irrationally and treated him unfairly by failing to follow its own policies requiring risk analysis to be applied. About the Duke’s safety.
“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 into which he would remain for the rest of his life,” Fatima said. “RAVEC should have taken into account, in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation that a successful attack on the claimant would have.”
The three-day hearing at the High Court in London is the latest in a series of cases A series of Harry’s legal cases Which has kept London judges busy as he deals with the UK government and the British tabloid media.
Harry was not in court as lawyers made opening remarks at a hearing scheduled to be held largely behind closed doors to discuss sensitive security matters. The judge is expected to issue his ruling at a later date.
Harry failed to convince a different judge earlier this year that he should be able to pay for the case privately London police force to guard him When he comes to town. A judge rejected the offer after a government lawyer said the officers should not be used “as private bodyguards for the wealthy.”
Harry’s youngest son King Charles IIIHe said he did not feel safe bringing his wife, former actress Meghan Markle, and their two young children to Britain, and was concerned for his safety after he was chased by paparazzi after a charity event in London.
Harry’s hostility toward the media dates back to the 1997 death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car accident when her driver tried to pass aggressive paparazzi in Paris. Harry, whose wife is biracial, cited what he said were the racist attitudes and intolerable intrusions of the British media in his decision to leave the UK.
The 39-year-old prince is challenging a decision by the group now known as the Executive Committee for the Protection of Kings and Public Figures to provide him security on a “case-by-case” basis after he moved in 2020 to Canada and then California. Where he and his family now reside.
“He should be placed in an allocated position and the ad hoc arrangements … tailored to him,” government lawyer James Eddy said. “He is no longer a member of a group of individuals whose security status remains under regular review.”
Eadie said the committee considered the wider impact of Diana’s “tragic death” on the nation, and in making its decision gave greater weight to “the potential significant public distress in the event of a successful attack” on her son.
Eddy also said there is a cost factor, because escrow funds are not unlimited. He noted that Harry obtained protection for certain events, such as his visit in June 2021, when paparazzi chased him after attending. Charity event for seriously ill children In Kew Gardens in west London.
Harry said the committee unfairly rejected his security request without hearing from him in person and did not reveal the composition of the committee, which he later learned included royal staff. He said Edward Young, assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, should not have been a member of the committee because of “significant tensions” between the two men.
The Home Office said that any tensions between Harry and royal family staff were irrelevant, and that the committee had the right to make its decision, because he had given up his role as a working member of the family.
This case is one of five cases Harry is still hearing in the Supreme Court.
The other four lawsuits involve Britain’s most popular tabloids, including a case of allegations Publisher of the Daily Mail She defamed him when she published a story suggesting he had tried to hide his efforts to continue receiving government-funded security. A ruling in this case is expected on Friday.
Three other lawsuits allege journalists at the Mail, the Daily Mirror, and the Sun Illegal means were usedSuch as scams, phone hacking, and hiring private investigators to try to uncover dirt on him.
“Infuriatingly humble web fan. Writer. Alcohol geek. Passionate explorer. Evil problem solver. Incurable zombie expert.”
