{"id":447644,"date":"2023-12-07T16:28:00","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T16:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/totalcelnews.com\/?p=447644"},"modified":"2023-12-07T16:28:00","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T16:28:00","slug":"prince-harry-says-uk-is-my-home-and-i-was-forced-to-leave-in-high-court-legal-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/totalcelnews.com\/celebrities\/prince-harry-says-uk-is-my-home-and-i-was-forced-to-leave-in-high-court-legal-battle\/","title":{"rendered":"Prince Harry says ‘UK is my home and I was forced to leave’ in High Court legal battle"},"content":{"rendered":"

Prince Harry claims his children cannot \u201cfeel at home\u201d in the UK if it is \u201cnot possible to keep them safe\u201d there, the High Court has heard.<\/p>\n

In a written witness statement prepared for his legal challenge against the Home Office over a change to his security arrangements when visiting, Harry, 39, said he and his wife Meghan Markle, 42, had been \u201cforced\u201d to leave the country in 2020.<\/p>\n

At a hearing in London on Thursday, 7 December, the Duke of Sussex\u2019s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, said Harry did not accept that it was a \u201cchoice\u201d for him to have stopped being a \u201cfull-time working member of the Royal Family\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The lawyer read out an excerpt from Harry\u2019s statement in which he said: \u201cIt was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020. The UK is my home. <\/p>\n

"The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US. That cannot happen if it\u2019s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil. I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm\u2019s way too.\u201d<\/p>\n

Harry now faces a wait for a judge\u2019s ruling on his legal action against the Home Office after a two-and-half-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice concluded on Thursday. <\/p>\n

The Duke\u2019s lawyers are challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to change the degree of his publicly funded security, arguing it was \u201cunlawful and unfair\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The majority of the proceedings were held in private, without the public or press present, due to confidential evidence over security measures being involved in the case.<\/p>\n

Ms Fatima has previously told the court that Harry was \u201csingled out\u201d and treated \u201cless favourably\u201d in a decision to change the level of his personal security. She said Ravec failed to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a \u201csuccessful attack\u201d on him.<\/p>\n

The barrister said a \u201ccrucial\u201d part of Ravec\u2019s approach was an analysis carried out by the Risk Management Board (RMB), but it had chosen not to do this in Harry\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

She said it was the first time the body had decided to \u201cdeviate\u201d from policy, with it adopting a \u201cfar inferior\u201d procedure in relation to \u201ccritical safeguards\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cNo good reason has been provided for singling the claimant (the duke) out in this way,\u201d she said, later adding that if Ravec had \u201cproperly\u201d considered the duke\u2019s case the outcome was likely to have been \u201cdifferent\u201d.<\/p>\n

But the Government says Harry\u2019s claim should be dismissed, arguing that Ravec \u2013 which falls under the Home Office\u2019s remit \u2013 was entitled to conclude the Duke\u2019s protection should be \u201cbespoke\u201d and considered on a \u201ccase-by-case\u201d basis.<\/p>\n

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written arguments that the decision \u201cnot to undertake an RMB analysis but to conduct a more bespoke, targeted assessment does not amount to treating (Harry) \u2018less favourably\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n

He said Ravec had decided that \u201cthe bespoke process to be more effective, to allow more specific and informed consideration by Ravec of the threat and risk picture for each visit\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Sir James said it was \u201csimply incorrect\u201d to suggest that there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales \u2013 Harry\u2019s mother \u2013 was raised as part of the decision.<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cRavec gave greater weight to the impact on state functions being lessened as a result of the change, over likely significant public upset were a successful attack on (Harry) to take place.\u201d Mr Justice Lane will give his judgment over the case at a later date.<\/p>\n

The security case is one of five High Court claims the duke is involved in, including extensive litigation against newspaper publishers.<\/p>\n

Harry, who was not present at the hearing, lives in North America with wife Meghan and their children Archie, four, and Lilibet, two, after the couple announced they were stepping back as senior royals in January 2020.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n