The Duke of Sussex has raised serious worries about his police security withdrawal, claiming his fears have been substantiated amid a legal fight with the Home Office.
The Duke of Sussex has expressed deep concerns regarding the withdrawal of his police protection, stating his “worst fears” have been confirmed through evidence presented during his ongoing legal battle against the Home Office. The Duke has launched an appeal following a High Court ruling that endorsed the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) decision to adjust his security arrangements following his departure from royal duties in early 2020.
On Wednesday, while leaving the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, Harry remarked that “people would be shocked by what’s being held back,” emphasizing his distress over the findings disclosed during the private portions of the hearing. He indicated that the recent legal disclosures represented a personal disillusionment when he stated, “that’s really sad.” Reports suggest that the Duke believes the decision to limit his security was influenced by an intention to hinder him and his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, from fully stepping back from royal responsibilities and relocating abroad, a claim that Buckingham Palace sources have refuted.
The appeal hearing, which took place over two days, included significant confidential testimony that Harry found troubling. He articulated to the newspaper that he felt “exhausted” and “overwhelmed” by the protracted legal disputes, indicating that this case holds more personal significance to him than his litigation against various tabloids, stating “this one always mattered the most.”
The controversy surrounding his protection arrangements stems from the couple’s decision to step back from their roles as senior royals, declared on January 8, 2020. At a subsequent meeting termed the ‘Sandringham summit’, Harry and Meghan were informed that they would lose access to full-time police protection. The final ruling from Ravec, issued on February 28, 2020, stated that after their departure, Metropolitan Police protection would be deemed unsuitable, and instead, the couple would be offered a more tailored security service—requiring them to notify authorities 30 days in advance of any travel plans to the UK, during which each visit would undergo threat assessment.
Harry’s legal representative, Shaheed Fatima KC, argued that the Duke has been subjected to “different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” and contested the notion that the ‘bespoke’ arrangements equate to improved security. In response, the Home Office maintained that its position is justified, with Sir James Eadie KC stating that Ravec faced a “unique set of circumstances” that necessitated careful consideration.
As the two-day hearing concluded, Sir Geoffrey Vos announced that the Court of Appeal’s decision would be delivered in writing at a later date, likely not before Easter, highlighting the court’s intention to deliberate thoroughly on the matter. The Duke of Sussex’s ongoing challenge against the Home Office not only reflects personal concerns regarding safety but also underscores the complexities surrounding the security provisions accorded to members of the royal family.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative references an active legal case with recent developments, but some information (e.g., Harry’s departure from royal duties in 2020) is a few years old. However, the ongoing nature of the appeal and recent courtroom events justify a high score.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
Quotes from Harry and legal representatives (e.g., Shaheed Fatima KC and Sir James Eadie KC) are provided, but without specific sources or earliest known references online. The quotes seem contextual and related to current events, increasing their likelihood of being original.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Belfast Telegraph, a reputable news source. However, it references claims made by Buckingham Palace sources and legal representatives without further verification.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about Harry’s security and the legal challenges he faces are plausible given his public withdrawal from royal duties. The argument that the decision was intended to hinder him and his wife from fully stepping back is controversial but within the realm of possibility.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The information appears current and relevant to ongoing legal proceedings involving the Duke of Sussex. The narrative is well-supported by quotes and references to reputable events. However, some claims could benefit from additional sources to fully verify their accuracy.
