GIVE IT UP!
Prince Harry’s £1m legal fight for taxpayer-funded UK security was total waste of time, says ex-bodyguard
Harry lost his battle for himself and his family to be given taxpayer-funded 24-hour protection
A FORMER bodyguard for Prince Harry has urged him to give up his costly legal fight over taxpayer-funded UK security.
Ken Wharfe said Harry — who he helped to protect as a boy — should just take no for an answer after his £1million bid was thrown out of court.
4
4
He insisted: “He made a big mistake going to court with this case as he was never going to win.
“Scotland Yard and the Government said they would go the whole nine yards for him and that should have been enough. He is actually on quite a good deal.”
California-based Harry lost his two-and-a-half-year battle for himself and his family to be given taxpayer-funded, 24-hour protection when in Britain.
As the Duke of Sussex vowed to appeal against the High Court ruling, court documents revealed how he had claimed threats from extremists put him at greater risk than his mum Princess Diana, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997.
Harry also demanded the name of the person who had made the decision on cutting his security.
He was contesting a decision to downgrade his security status when he stopped being a working royal.
Harry, 39, moaned that he had been treated unfairly by The Royal and VIP Executive Committee.
PROTECTION 'PACKAGE'
He is allowed security when he stays at royal residences or attends royal events but has to give Ravec 28 days’ notice if he is coming to the UK on other occasions such as seeing pals or for charity events.
Most read in Royals
The committee will then consider potential threats and tailor a “bespoke” package of protection.
There are fears the latest court blow may mean Harry’s wife Meghan, 42, and their two children will never visit the UK again.
Prince Harry may have embellished drug taking claims to sell his book, a court heard
King Charles, 75, who has cancer, has not seen grandchildren Archie, four, Lilibet, two, since 2022.
In court papers Harry’s lawyers said he needed beefed-up security after al-Qaeda assassination threats over claims in his memoir that he killed 25 Taliban fighters while serving in Afghanistan in 2012.
His concerns over being “ambushed” by paparazzi at a charity event in London in June 2021 were also highlighted.
The court was told the incident was more alarming “in the light of what happened to his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales”.
A letter from Harry to the then-Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill in February 2020 demanded to know the name of the person willing to put his family in a position of “extreme vulnerability and risk”.
That was “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago — and yet today, with greater risk,” Harry wrote.
DIANA FEARS
He said he was at greater risk than Diana, given “additional layers of racism and extremism”.
Harry asked: “I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please.”
Former royal protection officer Mr Wharfe said: “Harry was unwise to make this case.
“He will always get protection when he comes over here as he is still a Prince of the realm. I don’t see why he has pursued this case. He was never going to win.
“Harry knows only too well the expert protection available and if he wanted to bring his wife and children here the protection will be more than sufficient.”
The Duke reportedly faces a £1million legal bill.
Home Office legal costs alone had reached £407,000 by last October before the three-day hearing at the High Court in December.
4
4
Harry will likely have to pay his own lawyers as well as costs, which have not yet been awarded.
A Home Office spokesman said they were “pleased” with the outcome and were “carefully considering our next steps”.
The High Court had ruled the “evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness” in the security downgrading.
The judge found having a “bespoke” arrangement was “legally sound”.
A separate court ruling rejected a bid by Harry to pay privately for police protection when in the UK.
Inside Prince Harry's fury as UK security team was pulled after Megxit
Prince Harry went to officials with many concerns amid his battle to get security while in the UK.
Today's findings have laid out some of them - including how Diana was treated, who's taking responsibility for his family and how he believed threat levels were raised because of 'racism'.
Harry asked who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as
mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen. I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please …”.
The prince also asked if anyone had thought about "the consequences" of the decision to cut his security.
He said: "Prove to me that someone has actually thought about the consequences without being punitive, which is how most of the decisions have been made in the last couple of months."
Harry outlined: "The obvious difference aside from that is the fact that I was born into this and the threat will never decrease because of my status regarding the Family”.
An ex-Tory Armed Forces minister told TalkTV taxpayers should not be “lumbered” with paying for Harry.
Lord Andrew Robathan insisted: “This is a man who chose to leave the Royal Family. If there was a known intelligence source saying he was at risk, that’s one thing, but there isn’t.
"He’s most of the time in California, where he may or may not employ security guards with the large deals he’s done with Netflix.
Read More on The US Sun
“But I don’t think the British taxpayer should be lumbered with paying for him, since he seems to rather not like Britain anyway.”
A legal spokesman for Harry said: “The Duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules. He hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal.