DUKE'S DEMANDS
‘I would like their name,’ says ‘petulant’ Prince Harry as he demands to know who denied him taxpayer-funded security
Harry claimed part of the reason for wanting high levels of security again was because of the death threats
PRINCE Harry demanded to know who denied him taxpayer-funded security, court documents have revealed.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, lost his High Court battle on Wednesday, which saw the Home Office dragged to proceedings, after he moaned he was "at a greater risk" than Princess Diana.
3
3
3
He claimed wife Meghan and himself had not been receiving the "same degree" of protection since quitting The Firm and fleeing the UK in 2020.
The Royal said concerns over his family's safety - including kids Archie and Lilibet - meant he couldn't return to Britain "because it is too dangerous" after security was dropped.
It has since emerged in a 52-page ruling that Harry demanded to know who in Government was responsible for throwing out his £1million bid.
Documents state him saying: "I would like that person's name."
read more on PRINCE harry
A letter from Harry to the then-Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill in February 2020 revealed he wanted to know who was willing to put his family in a position of “extreme vulnerability and risk”.
Harry wrote: [It was] 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."
He has now vowed to appeal the decision after a judge ruled there had not been any "unlawfulness" in the move to pull his bodyguards - funded by the taxpayer.
Most read in Royals
It comes after Harry boasted of killing 25 Taliban members in his memoir Spare.
The Duke, who served with the British Army in Afghanistan, was bombarded with death threats from Al Qaeda following its publication.
In the book, Harry revealed he flew six missions on his second tour in 2012 and killed the fighters while piloting his Apache attack helicopter.
Harry was part of a British force which was helping an international coalition to battle back the terror group after they were ousted from power in 2001.
Prince Harry & Meghan make money trashing the Royals - why should we pay for his security? | Royal Exclusive Show
Following the admission, Harry claimed part of the reason for wanting high levels of security again was because of the death threats.
A statement in official documents read: "In light of various matters, including that he was the son of King Charles III, a brother of the Prince of Wales, and that Al Qaeda had recently called for the claimant to be killed."
Harry said that technology in the force meant: "I could always say precisely how many combatants I'd killed."
He wrote: “So my number: 25. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed.
“In the heat and fog of combat, I didn’t think of those 25 as people. I’d been trained to ‘other-ise’ them.”
Harry wrote that he did not see his victims as real "people" but rather "chess pieces removed from the board".
The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision
The findings of December's hearing published on Wednesday
They were, he added, “baddies eliminated before they could kill goodies".
His explosive military claims sparked a ferocious response from officials in the ruthless Afghan regime.
At the time, Taliban official Anas Haqqani responded online and wrote: “Mr Harry! The ones you killed were not chess pieces, they were humans… these atrocities will be remembered in the history of humanity.”
Taliban police spokesman Khalid Zadran said: "Prince Harry will always be remembered in Helmand - Afghans will never forget the killing of their innocent countrymen.
What security did Harry ask for?
Prince Harry had his security stripped back by the Home Office in 2020 when he left the Royal Family.
He moaned he was being treated "less favourably" than others in the Royal Family after the Home Office refused to spend taxpayers' money on bodyguards after his departure.
The Sussexes were stripped of their round-the-clock protection that year.
He was allowed protection when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
The Duke was fighting to get the 24/7 protection back - claiming he couldn't visit the UK unless it was granted.
He also wanted police protection for his kids.
"The perpetrators of such crimes will one day be brought to the international court and criminals like Harry who proudly confess their crimes will be brought to the court table in front of the international community."
Mr Zadran said Harry's description was "cruel" and "barbaric".
LOST LEGAL FIGHT
The High Court heard in May last year how Harry had brought a case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
The findings of December's hearing published on Wednesday read: "The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020.
"Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational.
"The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness. Even if such
procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant relief.
"This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially
different."
It added: "The court has also found that there has been no unlawfulness on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain, following the decision of 28 February 2020."
Judge Sir Peter said in his ruling that Ravec's decision in 2020 was "legally sound".
"That evidence shows no irrationality or other unlawfulness, as regards the other VIP category," he added.
READ MORE SUN STORIES
It comes after Harry's lawyers told the court in December that the decision to remove his taxpayer funded security had been "unlawful and unfair".
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."
Topics