PRINCE Harry has claimed axing his taxpayer-funded police protection was a PLOT to force him and Meghan back to Britain
The Duke of Sussex, 40, also moaned his “worst fears have been confirmed” by secret evidence he heard in court.
4
4
4
Harry is attempting to sue the Home Office because it refused to spend taxpayers’ money on bodyguards after he left the Royal Family.
And now – after his appearance at London’s High Court this week – Harry told the Daily Telegraph the decision to withdraw his security after Megxit was “difficult to swallow”.
The dad-of-two hinted he would never be able to forgive what he viewed as a deliberate move to scrap the protection for his family.
He also suggested some of the evidence heard in court would surprise people, as reported by the Tele.
“People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” he said, adding that his “worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad”.
Harry said he was “exhausted” and “overwhelmed” by the security battle.
The dad-of-two said when he is being “driven by exposing injustice” and that he is determined to “get under the bonnet and fix it”.
The appeal decision will be handed down by the three-judge panel after Easter.
When Ravec’s original decision was shared that the Sussexes plan to live abroad as private citizens did not “fit readily” into any category of Ravec’s framework, and Met Police protection would be scrapped, the Duke said it had been imposed upon him “as some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first”.
At his second day of the hearing held this week, Harry begged “my life is stake”.
Harry claimed he was “singled out” after his round-the-clock royal protection was stripped in the wake of Megxit.
But in February last year, High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the duke’s case and ruled Ravec’s approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
At the hearing this week, Harry’s lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC told the court in a closing statement: “There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake.
“There is a person sitting behind me who’s being told that he is getting a special and bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
She added: “We say that his presence here and through this appeal is a potent illustration, were one needed, about how much this appeal means to him and family.”
Ms Fatima claimed on the first day Harry had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
She also touched on Megxit – claiming in written documents that Harry and Meghan Markle felt “forced” to leave to the Royal Family.
The lawyer added: “On 8 January 2020, (the duke) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full time official working members of the royal family as they considered they were not being protected by the institution, but they wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the royal family.”
Ms Fatima told the court Ravec came up with a “bespoke” process not applied to anyone else, but that Harry doesn’t accept bespoke means “better”.
She continued: “The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family.
“The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.”
In court documents, his team highlighted “recent security incidents” surrounding the Duke.
This included Al-Qaeda calling for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec’s decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.
Another refers to a May 2023 incident after “[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City”.
In their own written arguments, the government say Harry’s “bare disagreement” with the decision to remove his security “does not amount to a ground of appeal”.
They claimed that while Harry “disagrees vehemently” with his security arrangements, his views are “largely irrelevant”.
The Home Office also claim they did not act “irrationally” and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry’s claim.
Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
The royal moaned he was unable to return with Meghan and his children Archie and Lilibet, “because it is too dangerous”.
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
Harry’s lawyers previously argued he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision.
They added his treatment was “unlawful and unfair” and warned of “the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack” against the duke.
Harry also wanted to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused – with insiders insisting cops are not “guns for hire”.
In his ruling in February, Sir Peter Lane said there had not been any “unlawfulness” in the call to pull Harry’s security.
He said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.
The judge added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”
More to follow… For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online
Thesun.co.uk is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.
Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thesun and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun.
4