Prince Harry tries to bring second legal challenge against Home Office in row over his security in UK
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”.
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).”
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
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.”
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
British Steel declined to comment.
UK
Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway