Prince Harry asserted in court on Thursday that he felt compelled to leave the UK due to security concerns and believes that he and his family cannot feel safe during visits home without proper protection. The youngest son of King Charles III, along with his wife Meghan, stepped back from their roles in the British royal family in 2020, relocating to North America and settling in California.
Harry has filed a case against the British government at the High Court in London after his taxpayer-funded security was withdrawn. The court proceedings, which began on Tuesday, have been conducted with limited access to the media and the public for security reasons.
During Thursday's session, Harry's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, conveyed his written statement to the court, emphasizing that he did not voluntarily choose to cease being a "full-time working member of the royal family." The statement expressed sadness over feeling compelled to step back from his role and leave the country in 2020. Harry emphasized the importance of the UK as his home, central to the heritage of his children, and a place where he wants them to feel safe. He explained that ensuring their safety on UK soil is crucial and cited his reluctance to put his wife and himself in harm's way.
The legal argument revolves around the contention that the decision to alter Harry's security arrangements after his departure was "unlawful and unfair" given his royal status and the tragic death of his mother, Princess Diana, in 1997. Lawyers for the government, however, reject the claim that Harry was "singled out" or treated "less favorably," asserting that the decision was based on his departure from the royal family and residence mostly abroad.
James Eadie, representing the interior ministry, informed the court that the decision to provide reduced security was due to Harry's departure from the royal family and his predominantly overseas residence. The court will deliver a judgment on this case, one of five involving Harry at the High Court, at a later date.
In a previous legal bid in May, Harry sought a review of the government's decision denying him permission to privately fund specialist UK police protection. The interior ministry argued against this, stating that it was not appropriate for wealthy individuals to purchase protective security when it had been deemed not in the public interest for such protection to be funded by taxpayers. The Metropolitan Police in London also opposed Harry's proposal, citing concerns about placing officers in harm's way for private payment.
0 Comments