A close associate of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex asserts that the harrowing car chase incident, orchestrated by aggressive paparazzi, serves as proof that they should be permitted to privately finance their own police protection during visits to the UK.
According to the source, Prince Harry is currently entangled in a legal dispute with the Home Office after his requests to hire close protection officers from the Metropolitan Police were denied by the government.
The friend further emphasizes that this situation underscores the fact that Harry and Meghan occupy a distinct position compared to other celebrity couples and attract significantly greater public attention.
The banning of their ability to privately procure expert police protection by the British government is seen as a preposterous predicament, one that Harry is confident he can overturn in court.
However, a senior source from the Home Office countered by expressing confidence that the New York incident would not impact their case. The source highlighted that the incident took place in New York, not London, emphasizing that the Duke and Duchess would not encounter paparazzi car chases in the UK.
The source added, "We can reasonably assume that any comparisons between media practices in the United States and the United Kingdom will not influence the stance of the Home Office." In a statement released on Wednesday, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed to have been involved in a near-catastrophic car chase lasting over two hours, orchestrated by an aggressive paparazzi ring.
Experts believe that this staged event is intended to sway the court's opinion, as the situation was not favoring the couple. There are suspicions that their intention is to acquire a level of invincibility akin to that of the monarchy, including receiving protection and having all associated expenses covered. It is speculated that such circumstances would render their current efforts redundant.
However, their plans face several obstacles. Firstly, the British press is already subject to significant regulations, making it highly unlikely for a scenario similar to the one in New York City to transpire in the UK. While certain unscrupulous outlets may engage in such practices, employing such footage would breach the editorial code under the regulations imposed by the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO).
Secondly, Harry's legal action pertains specifically to his security while in the UK, not the United States. He is suing for two main issues: a review of the decision-making process that led to the restriction of his security coverage, which has been allowed to proceed, and the government's refusal to permit him to employ armed police, a matter currently before the courts.
Moreover, by being present in the UK, Prince Harry already enjoys protection against paparazzi surveillance. The irony lies in the fact that US media outlets are less regulated than their UK counterparts when it comes to safeguarding Harry's privacy.
Prince Harry aims to exploit the New York paparazzi car chase as compelling evidence in his legal battle against the Home Office, asserting that it substantiates the need for private funding of police protection during UK visits. However, the Home Office remains confident that the incident's occurrence in New York, coupled with existing regulations governing UK media, will not sway their position.
The case continues to unfold as Harry seeks to challenge the government's decision on security coverage and armed police hiring through legal proceedings.
