Prince Harry ‘lamented not being able to afford security after leaving public duties’

After stepping down from royal duties, Prince Harry said he couldn’t afford the private security to protect himself “until he can make money,” the High Court has heard.

Duke of Sussex The latest legal battle was yesterday, high court Against Publisher of Mail on Sunday and suing for defamation.

Harry is suing Associated Newspapers Limited About the publication of his article on forced bidding government To provide police bodyguards when his family visited England.

Judge Nicklin ruled an article suggesting that the Duke was responsible for a statement he allegedly falsely claimed to have offered to pay for police protection himself, before filing a lawsuit with the Home Office. .

Harry, 38 years old, wrote in his bombshell memoir, keepa family summit with his father and brother sandringham It was an “amendment” that presented the conditions for resigning from royal duties in January 2020.

Summit – included late queen – This is where Harry is said to have offered to pay the guarantee fee.

Justin Rushbrook, who represents Harry, KC, told the court that Harry had offered to pay for the family’s police security during the summit.

He said it was “irrelevant” whether Harry “communicated his offer to pay directly” to the Home Office or the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. [Ravec]reviews the security needs of the royal family.

Rushbrooke said he never claimed that Harry made direct offers to the Home Office or Ravec before filing the lawsuit.

He said Harry “obviously believed or assumed” that the offer would be taken over.

Andrew Caldecott, KC, who represents Associate Newspapers, publisher of The Mail on Sunday, said Harry had emailed Sir Edward Young. Queen’s The private secretary claimed that three months after the family summit, it was clear that “we could not afford to have private security until we had an income.”

Khaledkot said the email also contained an offer to pay his ransom, although Harry claims he cannot disclose the full text of the email due to non-disclosure agreements. claims.

Sir Michael Stevensthe keeper of the secret purse is also named in the letter, the court said.

prince harry It also claims to have spoken with him three weeks after the summit. Sir Mark Sedwillon his offer to be the then Chief Cabinet Secretary and the UK’s National Security Advisor.

He allegedly “reiterated his willingness to pay a security fee if necessary.”

The Mail on Sunday article was published last February under the headline: I tried to put a positive twist on the controversy.”

Publisher Andrew Caldecott KC has accused Prince Harry of playing “fast and loose” in previous decisions by judges.

“The application is without merit and should be rejected,” he said in a statement.

he claimed that an offer of security payment was made to the member royal familyis not the same as an offer to the government, and Harry could justifiably be accused of misleading the public.

“The petitioner (Harry) was responsible for a public statement claiming he was willing to pay for police protection, and the legal challenge was the government’s refusal to do so,” he said. I got

Caldecott said Harry’s lawyer’s allegations “bind the newspaper’s right to comment.

He said it was essential for the media to speak truth to power, and that it was important, if not more, to speak to power as long as opinions were based on facts. rice field.

The Mail on Sunday asked a series of questions to the Duke’s attorney and PR agency, and received a background note explaining Harry’s judicial review claims, but did not receive direct responses to the questions.

Judge Nicklin said, “I cannot understand the reluctance to answer candid questions about legal proceedings in court.”

The judge reserved ruling on whether the newspaper could continue to defend its article as an “honest opinion.”

Harry home office After being told in September 2021 that they would no longer be given the “same level” of personal protection security when visiting from home, California.

The Duke has been given leave for a full hearing in the case and the case has already cost taxpayers around £300,000 in legal fees.