Exposed in court, the ‘significant tensions’ between Harry and the Queen’s top aide
TENSIONS between Prince Harry and one of the Queen’s most senior aides were exposed at the High Court yesterday.
Lawyers for the Duke of Sussex said the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, should not have been involved in decisions over Harry’s security because of ‘significant tensions’ between the pair.
Harry, 37, is seeking a judicial review over a decision to axe his taxpayerfunded police bodyguards after he and wife Meghan quit their roles as senior royals for a new life in the US.
His legal team said it was not ‘appropriate’ for Sir Edward or other senior courtiers to have been involved in the Government’s decision to change Harry’s security status. The
‘That’s quite a bold submission to make’
duke was told the decision-making committee was ‘independent’ from the Royal Household, his lawyers said, but has learned that Sir Edward, an assistant private secretary and a senior member of Prince Charles’s household were part of the body.
Shaheed Fatima QC, for Harry, said he had expressed ‘concerns and requests’ to Sir Edward and to Charles’s principal private secretary Sir Clive Alderton and believed they were passed on to the committee.
He now alleges they were not fully communicated and that the decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures – known as Ravec – was unlawful.
Harry is seeking a judicial review of the decision to strip him and his family of automatic round-the-clock security when they are in Britain.
Police bodyguards are now assigned on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, lawyers for the Home Office said.
Mrs Fatima told the High Court there were ‘significant tensions’ between Harry and Sir Edward at the time of the Ravec decision.
Judge Mr Justice Swift responded: ‘That’s quite a bold submission to make.’ Further details were not given, although some arguments were heard in private due to security concerns. Sir Edward, 55, was among the aides who advised the Queen, Charles and Prince William about the terms of the ‘Megxit’ deal agreed in early 2020 after Harry and Meghan announced they wanted to step back from royal duties.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex reportedly proposed a hybrid deal which would see them become parttime royals.
Mrs Fatima said there was no suggestion the Ravec decision was biased or made in ‘bad faith’ because of the tensions.
But she said Harry should have been given ‘a clear and full explanation’ of the Ravec committee and its members to allow him to make informed arguments about his security arrangements. ‘He was not informed about the composition of Ravec and nor was he informed that the Royal Household was involved in making the decision,’ she said.
The decision was affected by ‘procedural unfairness’ and should be scrutinised at a judicial review, she told the High Court. In written arguments to the High Court, Harry’s lawyer said he had offered to pay for his own police security, but did not know if that offer was communicated to the committee.
He is now seeking a second judicial review over that offer to pay. Mrs Fatima said: ‘He was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of Ravec’s process (and) the involvement of certain individuals. It is arguable that, if there had been a fair process, Ravec would or could have reached a different decision.’ Lawyers for the Home Office said Harry’s application for a judicial review should be refused, as the Ravec committee was entitled to reach its decision after his status changed within the Royal Family.
Lawyers for the duke have said he does not feel safe during visits to Britain, where he uses a private security team who do not have access to UK intelligence or police powers.
Sir James Eadie QC, for the Home Office, said any tensions between the Duke and the Royal Household were ‘irrelevant’, as was Harry’s offer to pay.
He said individuals ‘should not be permitted to simply demand security’ because they could afford to pay for it.
Sir James said Ravec assessed Harry’s security needs based on his decision to step back from official royal duties.
He told the court: ‘The claimant’s view as to what his status and circumstances require by way of protective security following his stepping back from official duties was and is not shared by Ravec.’ Mr Justice Swift said he hoped to give a decision within weeks on whether to allow a judicial review.