LONDON (Parliament Politics Magazine): Prince Harry is pursuing a judicial review of the Home Office’s rejection to allow him to pay for his own police security while in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex, who resides in the United States, claims that his private security team has proper international authority.
After retiring from the royal duties in 2020, he lost his taxpayer-funded police protection.
Prince Harry has stated that he would like to visit his homeland with his family, but that he must “guarantee” their safety.
The legal action was launched in September to question the decision-making underlying the security procedures, hoping that this could be re-evaluated for the necessary and obvious protection required according to a legal counsel for Prince Harry.
“Not to impose on the taxpayer,” they claimed, Prince Harry wants to fund his own police security.
With their access to and legal authority local intelligence, the duke, who is now residing in California, claims that his private security team cannot emulate the police’s work of protection in the UK.
According to a statement: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life.
In January 2020, as the Sussexes’ future role was being discussed with the Queen at Sandringham, his legal counsel said he proposed to pay for police security. The offer, however, was turned down, according to the representative.
“The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in. With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk,” the statement said.
Lilibet, the Sussexes’ seven-month-old daughter, hasn’t met with her great-grandmother the Queen, grandfather the Prince of Wales, and other members of the family.
After the then-president Donald Trump declared the US wouldn’t be paying for their protection, the pair was compelled to reveal the “privately funded security plans” are in place for their relocation to the US.
The “protective security system of the UK is robust and proportional,” according to a government official.
They further stated that they had a long-standing policy of not disclosing specific details about those arrangements. That could jeopardise their credibility and jeopardise people’s safety.