Duke of Sussex lawyers criticised by judge over evidence
Parts of some documents in the Duke of Sussex's claim against the Home Office will be kept secret, a High Court judge ruled as he criticised Harry's legal team for an "entirely unacceptable" breach of court rules. is bringing a claim against the department after being told he would no longer getthe"samedegree"ofpersonalprotectivesecuritywhenvisitingfromtheus,despiteoffering to pay for it himself.
The duke wants to bring his children to visit from the US, but he and his family are "unable to return to his home" because it is too dangerous, a representative previously said.
He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the execuharry tive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures – known as Ravec – which has delegated powers from the Home Secretary.
At a preliminary hearing last month, the High Court in London heard an application by both sides for some parts of the court documents in the case to be kept private.
1. In a judgment, Mr Justice Swift said yesterday the bid to withhold or redact documents – including a confidential witness statement made by Harry – was allowed .
2. The judge said: "Some of the information relied on concerns security arrangements put in place either for the claimant or for other public figures in the United Kingdom. For obvious reasons information on such matters usually remains confidential."
Mr Justice Swift said that some parts of his reasons for the decision would have to remain confidential as well.
He added that editing out information from court documents would "avoid the risk that putting information into the public domain concerning security arrangements made on past occasions".
After the judgment was made public, Mr Justice Swift criticised Harry's legal team for breaking the embargo on the document. High Court judgments are typically provided to lawyers in the case under embargo in a draft form ahead of being made public.
However, Mr Justice Swift said that a copy of yesterday's ruling had been emailed to someone who was not a lawyer, against court rules, calling this "entirely unacceptable".