Prince Harry declares UK is still his home: I was ‘forced’ to ‘step back’ from royal duties



Prince Harry’s battle to secure police protection from the High Court in the UK concluded Thursday, with the Duke of Sussex claiming that the “danger” he and wife Meghan Markle faced in his birth country “forced” him to flee to the United States.

Harry, 39, was not in attendance, but did submit a written statement read in the London court.

His attorney Shaheed Fatima KC argued that his client did not accept the idea that he had a “choice” in regards to not being a “full-time working member of the royal family” and that the February 2020 decision to strip him of taxpayer-funded police security when he visits Britain should be overturned.

“The UK is my home,” read Harry’s witness statement prepared for the trial. “The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US.”

“That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil,” he added.

Fatima read out a portion of Harry’s statement at the hearing, denouncing the ruling previously made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures when he and Markle, 42, walked away from the monarchy in 2020.

Prince Harry leaves the Royal Courts of Justice in London on March 28, 2023. AP

“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too,” the Duke’s statement explained, alluding to the tragic death of his mother Princess Diana from a car crash in 1997. “It was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020.”

The three-day trial was held in private as a result of the confidential evidence regarding royal security measures involved in the case.

The Post has contacted reps for Harry for comment.

Prince Harry’s attorney argued that his client did not accept the idea that he had a “choice” in regards to not being a “full-time working member of the royal family” and that the February 2020 decision to strip him of taxpayer-funded police security when he visits Britain should be overturned. Getty Images

Throughout the proceedings, Fatima argued that RAVEC’s decision to change the degree of his publicly funded security was “unlawful and unfair.”

“This case is about the right to safety and security of a person. There could not be a right of greater importance to any of us,” Fatima said in court. “[RAVEC] should have considered the ‘impact’ that a successful attack on the claimant would have, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal family — which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life. RAVEC should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant.”

Fatima also argued that Harry had been “singled out” and treated “less favorably” by RAVEC because they did not fully consider the impact of a “successful attack” on the duke and his family during their risk analysis because a “crucial” part to be carried out by the Risk Management Board was not done.

The Duke of Sussex, 39, and his wife, Meghan Markle, 42, (photographed with their two children Archie and Lilibet) were stripped of taxpayer-funded police protection after they stepped back from being “working royals” and moved to the US in 2020. Alexi Lubomirski / Duke and Duch

“No good reason has been provided for singling the claimant (the duke) out in this way,” Fatima said.

In response, the Home Office’s Sir James Eadie KC stated Fatima was “simply incorrect” and that Harry’s case should be thrown out of court.

In a written argument, Eadie made clear that the decision “not to undertake an RMB analysis but to conduct a more bespoke, targeted assessment does not amount to treating [Harry] less favorably.”

The case, which will be decided by Mr. Justice Lane at a later date, is just one of the five High Court claims Harry is involved in, another of which includes his legal bout with UK tabloids over alleged phone-hacking claims.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *