Prince Harry will try to bring a second legal challenge against the Home Office over his UK security arrangements.
The Duke of Sussex wants to be able to pay for protective security privately when he and his family are in the UK.
But the Home Office – which is responsible for policing, immigration and security – decided in February 2020 that the prince would cease receiving personal police security while in Britain, even if he were to cover the cost himself.
That followed the decision by Harry and his wife, Meghan, to “step back” as working senior royals and relocate to the United States.
The High Court heard today the duke wants to be given the go-ahead to bring legal action, with a view to securing a judicial review.
Prince Harry disagrees with decisions made about his security by the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures – known as Ravec.
Payment for policing ‘not inconsistent’ with public interest
On Tuesday, the court was told this bid for legal action is “related” to an earlier claim brought by the duke after he was told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting the UK.
Lawyers for Harry said this decision was inconsistent with a law that allows the “‘chief officer of police’ to provide ‘special police services’ subject to payment”.
Advertisement
In written submissions, Shaheed Fatima KC said: “The principal ‘disadvantage’ that is relied upon by Ravec – that allowing payment for protective security is contrary to the public interest and will undermine public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service – cannot be reconciled with… the fact that Parliament has expressly allowed for the payment for such services.”
She added: “By creating that discretion, Parliament has clearly decided that in principle payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).”
Image: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back as a senior royals in 2020
Representing the Home Office, Robert Palmer KC said the judge who previously denied the prince the go-ahead to bring his second claim against the department was correct.
But Harry’s lawyer continued: “Ravec has not provided any principled or rational basis for drawing a distinction between the provision of protective security for those individuals within the Ravec cohort, who, according to the funding decision, are not permitted to privately fund protective security, and other private individuals, who could privately fund protective security, by making a request to the chief officer of police.”
In written submissions, Ms Fatima said that a judge previously denied the Duke of Sussex permission to bring the claim without a hearing.
She said: “The refusal of permission is intended for cases which are ‘hopeless’. That is not this case.
“Neither the judge nor the parties… have identified a clean knock-out blow as to why the claim is unarguable.
“The appropriate course is to grant permission, to allow the important ‘issue of principle’ raised by this case – and which the funding decision letter recognised ‘might be raised in other cases’ – to be fully argued at a substantive hearing.”
Harry ‘might’ have ‘wanted to pay for police security’
Mr Palmer, in written submissions for the Home Office, said that the funding decision arose because the claimant suggested he “was or might be” willing “privately to fund the protective security he sought” from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
He added that Ravec was asked to consider whether it was “appropriate for a person for whom Ravec had not authorised protective security, or for particular instances in which it had not been authorised, to nonetheless receive it but to reimburse the public purse the cost of it”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:34
Phone hacking trial explained
He said Ravec “unanimously decided that an individual should not be permitted to privately fund their Protective Security provided by the MPS”.
Mr Palmer later said that Ravec – which he said includes senior officials from the Home Office, MPS and the royal household – was not required to give the prince the chance to make representations.
He added: “Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event.”
Police investigating a fire at a north London house owned by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are also looking into whether it is linked to two other recent blazes.
The Metropolitan Police said on Monday evening that detectives are checking a vehicle fire in NW5 last week and a fire at the entrance of a property in N7 on Sunday to see whether they are connected to the fire at Sir Keir Starmer’s house in the early hours of Monday morning.
The prime minister is understood to still own the home and used to live there before he and his family moved into 10 Downing Street after Labour won last year’s general election. It is believed the property is being rented out.
Counter-terrorism police are leading the investigation as a precaution, the Met said.
The blaze damaged the entrance to the house, but there were no injuries, the force said.
Image: The entrance to the house was damaged by the fire. Pic: LNP
Image: Counter-terror police are leading the investigation. Pic: LNP
A statement from the Metropolitan Police said: “On Monday 12 May at 1.35am, police were alerted by the London Fire Brigade to reports of a fire at a residential address.
More on Sir Keir Starmer
Related Topics:
“Officers attended the scene. Damage was caused to the property’s entrance, nobody was hurt.
“As a precaution and due to the property having previous connections with a high-profile public figure, officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command are leading the investigation into this fire. Enquiries are ongoing to establish the potential cause of the fire.”
A police cordon and officers, as well as investigators from London Fire Brigade, could be seen outside and at one point, part of the street was cordoned off to all vehicles.
London Fire Brigade said firefighters were called just after 1am, and the blaze was out within half an hour. It described the incident as “a small fire outside a property”.
Image: Pic: PA
Image: Emergency services were deployed to the scene in north London. Pic: PA
Sir Keir expressed his gratitude to the police and fire services via his official spokesman, who said: “I can only say that the prime minister thanks the emergency services for their work, and it is subject to a live investigation. So I can’t comment any further.”
He did not clarify how far he wants figures to fall, only saying numbers will come down “substantially” as he set out plans in the government’s Immigration White Paper, including banning care homes from hiring overseas.
A power outage caused major travel disruption on London’s Tube network on Monday, stretching into rush hour.
The Elizabeth, Bakerloo, Jubilee and Northern lines were among the routes either suspended or delayed, with several stations closed and passengers forced to evacuate.
A spokesman for Transport for London (TfL) said there was an outage in southwest London for “a matter of minutes” and “everything shut down”.
National Grid confirmed a fault on its transmission network, which was resolved in “seconds”, but led to a “voltage dip” that affected some supplies.
The London Fire Brigade said the fault caused a fire at an electrical substation in Maida Vale, and it’s understood firefighters destroyed three metres of high-voltage cabling.
Image: The scene in Piccadilly Circus as passengers were evacuated
That came just weeks after a fire at the same substation, which saw elderly and vulnerable residents among those moved from their homes.
But today’s fire – between Cunningham Place and Aberdeen Place – is understood to have involved different equipment to the parts in the 29 April incident.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
TfL’s chief operating officer Claire Mann apologised for the disruption, adding: “Due to a brief interruption of the power supply to our network, several lines lost power for a short period earlier this afternoon.”
Passengers told Sky News of the disruption’s impact on their plans, with one claiming he would have had to spend £140 for a replacement ticket after missing his train.
He said he will miss a business meeting on Tuesday morning in Plymouth as a result.
Another said she walked to five different stations on Monday, only to find each was closed when she arrived.
“Supermax” jails could be built to house the most dangerous offenders following a spate of alleged attacks on staff, the prisons minister has said.
James Timpson told the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge that “we shouldn’t rule anything out” when asked if the most dangerous criminals should be placed in top security prisons.
It comes after Southport triple killer Axel Rudakubana allegedly threw boiling water from a kettle at an officer at HMP Belmarsh on Thursday. Police are now investigating.
Speaking from HMP Preston for a special programme of the Politics Hub, Mr Timpson told Sophy Ridge: “We inherited a complete mess in the prison system.
“Violence is up, assaults on staff is up. But for me, we shouldn’t rule anything out.”
More on Prisons
Related Topics:
He added: “What we need to do is to speak to our staff. They’re the experts at dealing with these offenders day in, day out. “
Mr Timpson – who was the chief executive of Timpson Group before he was appointed prisons minister last year – said the violence in prisons was “too high”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:06
Are we sending too many people to prison?
He continued: “The number of people when you have prisons are so full, and the people in there are not going to education or into purposeful activity.
“You get more violence and that is totally unacceptable. Our staff turn up to work to help turn people.
“They want to turn people’s lives around. They didn’t turn up to work to get assaulted. It’s totally unacceptable.”
Reflecting on the crisis facing the UK prison system ahead of the government’s sentencing review, Mr Timpson said a major problem was the high rate of reoffending, saying “80% of offending is reoffending”.
He said people were leaving places like HMP Preston “addicted to drugs, nowhere to live, mental health problems – and that’s why they keep coming back”.
Asked whether every prison had a drugs issue, he replied: “100%.”
“If we want to keep the public safe, we need to do a lot more of the work in here and in the community. But also we need to build more prisons.”
Put to him that making more use of community sentences – thought to be one of the recommendations in the government’s sentencing review – might be considered a “cushy option” compared to a custodial sentence, Mr Timpson said: “There are some people in this prison tonight who would prefer to be in prison than do a community sentence – but that’s not everybody.
“Community sentences need to be tough punishments outside of prison, not just to help them address their offending behaviour, but also the victims need to see punishments being done too and for me, technology has a big part to play in the future.”