Prince Harry Says His Security Removal Had One Glaring Error – Newsweek

Prince Harry's lawyer says the British government did not do a key risk assessment before stripping him of his police protection and had not "considered the 'impact' that a successful attack" would have.

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Home Office over its decision to remove the armed Metropolitan Police officers who provided him with round-the-clock protection while he was a working royal.

RAVEC, a committee that also included police and senior palace aides who Harry had fallen out with, made the decision in February 2020 after he announced his decision to quit a month earlier and before his final royal engagements that March.

A court filing, seen by Newsweek, read: "RAVEC should have considered the 'impact' that a successful attack on [Harry] would have, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal familywhich he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his lifeand his ongoing charity work and service to the public."

"RAVEC should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK's reputation of a successful attack on [Harry]."

Shaheed Fatima, Harry's attorney, told the court RAVEC's own policies suggested an assessment by the Risk Management Board (RMB) should have been taken before he was stripped of his protection.

"In this case RAVEC chose not to follow its own written policy," she told the High Court in London. "RAVEC chose not to do an RMB risk analysis. RAVEC therefore chose to apply a far inferior procedure to [Harry] that lacked the critical safeguards that have been built into the written policy."

The prince's team believe it is the first time the Home Office has done this and Fatima added: "No good reason has been provided for singling [Harry] out in this way."

"The critical point is that when that decision was taken he was still a full-time working member of the royal family," she continued. "He was plainly still in the RAVEC cohort and the written policies should have been applied to him."

She said "the court does not need to make a decision about" whether Harry should get "protective security," but rather whether the decision was unlawful. It is possible that even if Harry wins, the government will simply take the same decision again using a different process.

Home Office's lawyers argued Harry's police team was not definitively removed and that taxpayer funded security has since been provided to him at certain points on visits to Britain.

However, the round-the-clock protective arrangement was ended when he moved abroad in favor of ad hoc assessments when he returns to the U.K.

A court filing, seen by Newsweek, reads: "In considering whether to provide Protective Security to any such individual, RAVEC considers the risk of a successful attack on that individual.

"In summary, RAVEC considers the threat that an individual faces, which is assessed by reference to the capability and intent of hostile actors, the vulnerability of that individual to such an attack, and the impact that such an attack would have on the interests of the State.

"The Decision was not that [Harry] would under no circumstances be provided with Protective Security. Rather: (1) As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the Royal Family, and would be living abroad for the majority of the time, his position had materially changed.

"In those circumstances, Protective Security would not be provided on the same basis as before. (2) However, he would, in particular and specific circumstances, be provided Protective Security when in Great Britain."

Police protection officers have so far been offered to Harry in relation to specific royal events to which he has been formally invited, such as Prince Philip's funeral.

However, even on those visits the Home Office has not always given him protection officers outside of those specific events.

Harry's legal representative said in January 2022 that the duke does not believe it is safe in Britain for him, Meghan Markle and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, unless his police protection team is restored.

The Home Office court filing suggested the risk analysis Harry's team asked for would not have been useful: "An RMB assessment would be of limited utility, however: it could not accurately re-assess impact, or judge [Harry's] vulnerability to an attack when it was unknown for how long [Harry] would be present in GB and what he would be doing while he was here."

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Read the original here:
Prince Harry Says His Security Removal Had One Glaring Error - Newsweek