Prince Harry alleges UK security decision was unjust
OAN’s Abril Elfi
2:42 PM – Wednesday, December 6, 2023
Prince Harry takes on the U.K.’s High Court over their decision to reduce his security protection when he relocated to the United States, arguing that it was an unjust ruling.
According to Harry’s attorney, Shaheed Fatima, the prince’s security needs, also known as the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), treated him unfairly and failed to follow their own guidelines, which required a risk assessment for the Duke of Sussex’s security.
“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,” Fatima said. “RAVEC should have considered, in particular, the impact on the U.K.’s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant.”
Government Attorney James Eadie argued that the prince “should be placed in a bespoke position and that bespoke arrangements be… specifically tailored to him.”
“He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review,” Eadie continued.
Eadie further explained that there were cost limitations since “security funds are not unlimited” and that Harry had received protection for specific occasions, such as his visit in June 2021, when he attended a charity event for ill children at Kew Gardens in London and was pursued by photographers.
Harry argued that the committee unfairly denied his security request and did not disclose the panel’s composition.
He also stated that the assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, Edward Young, should not have been on the committee due to “significant tensions” between them.
The Home Office maintained that since Harry had given up his position as a family worker, any conflicts he may have had with the employees of the royal household were irrelevant and the committee had the right to make its decision.
A judge is expected to make a ruling on the case at a later date. The date was not disclosed to the press.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
House Republicans extend an invitation to Jewish college students to share their experiences with anti-Semitism at their universities.
Author David Horowitz releases a captivating new book titled “The Radical Mind: The Destructive Plans of the Woke Left.”
Special Counsel David Weiss criticizes Hunter Biden for requesting to subpoena former President Trump. This comes as Hunter’s legal team wanted to make the December 13th deposition public.
Multiple police officers sustain injuries after a tense standoff with a suspect leads to a house explosion in Arlington, Virginia.
Meta Platforms announces the addition of invisible watermarking to its text-to-image generation product, imagine with Meta AI chatbot, in the upcoming weeks to enhance transparency.
Alphabet introduces its most advanced artificial intelligence model capable of processing various forms of information, including video, audio, and text.
Unidentified governments are discovered surveilling smartphone users through their apps’ push notifications.
Elon Musk clarifies that his company xAI is not currently raising funds, despite filing with the U.S. securities regulator to potentially raise up to $1 billion in an equity offering.
rnrn
How does the government attorney justify the decision to provide Prince Harry with a personalized security arrangement?
Prince Harry has taken the UK’s High Court to task over their decision to reduce his security protection when he relocated to the United States, arguing that it was an unjust ruling. Harry’s attorney, Shaheed Fatima, asserts that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), responsible for assessing security needs, treated him unfairly and failed to adhere to their own guidelines, which mandated a risk assessment for the Duke of Sussex’s security.
According to Fatima, RAVEC should have considered the potential impact of a successful attack on Harry, taking into account his royal family background, status, and profile. The attorney argues that the committee should have also considered the repercussions such an attack would have on the reputation of the UK.
Government Attorney James Eadie, however, contends that Harry should have a personalized security arrangement tailored to his specific requirements. Eadie points out that as a member no longer under regular security review, Harry’s case demands individual attention.
Eadie further explains that there are financial limitations to consider, as security funds are not unlimited. He highlights that Harry has received protection for specific occasions, such as public events where he was pursued by photographers. In light of these constraints, Eadie argues that the committee made a justifiable decision.
Harry maintains that the committee unjustly denied his security request and failed to disclose the panel’s composition. He also asserts that Edward Young, the assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, should not have been part of the committee due to significant tensions between them.
The Home Office counters Harry’s claims by stating that since he has relinquished his position as a royal family member, any conflicts he may have had with royal household employees are irrelevant. They argue that the committee was within its rights to make a decision regardless of such conflicts.
The case is now in the hands of a judge who will make a ruling at a later date, which has not been disclosed to the public.
It remains to be seen how the court will weigh the concerns raised by both parties and determine the outcome of this dispute over Prince Harry’s security protection.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
