Prince Harry contends that his safety has been compromised due to the hostility directed towards him and his family on social media and in the press. His attorney, Shahed Fatima, argued that the group responsible for evaluating Prince Harry's security needs, formerly known by the acronym RIFK (Royal and VIP Executive Committee), treated him unfairly and failed to adhere to its own policies, which require a risk analysis concerning the safety of the Duke of Sussex.
Fatima emphasized that RIFK should have considered the potential impact of a successful attack on Prince Harry, taking into account his status, background, and profile within the royal family, to which he was born and which he will carry for the rest of his life. Furthermore, she argued that RIFK should have specifically assessed the impact on the UK's reputation in the event of an attack on Prince Harry.
During the opening remarks presented by attorneys in London's High Court for the three-day hearing, Prince Harry himself was not present. A judge is expected to make a ruling at a later date. Prince Harry's legal team has criticized the decision regarding his security arrangements for King Charles III's coronation. However, the UK's Home Office has stood firm in its position.
According to a court filing obtained by Newsweek, the Duke of Sussex did travel to Britain for his father's significant event but left so hastily that he was already on a plane before the day's events had concluded. In the company of other VIPs and foreign dignitaries at the coronation, Prince Harry did not feel secure.
Government Attorney James Eddie argued that Prince Harry is no longer part of the cohort of individuals whose security situation is subject to regular review, primarily due to cost constraints, as security funds are not limitless. Eddie noted that Prince Harry had been granted protection for specific events, including his visit in June 2021 when he claimed to have been pursued by photographers after attending a charity event at Kew Gardens in West London.
Behind closed doors, lawyers are once again discussing the incident at WellChild, where Prince Harry alleged that he was chased by paparazzi while leaving the event. However, a video clip has emerged showing that there was no such chase as Prince Harry's vehicle left Kew Gardens. There have been no documented instances of chases or stalking of either Prince Harry or Meghan, even when they have insinuated such incidents. It has been revealed that the Sussexes' assistant sold the video footage, which surfaced at a conveniently timed moment. This evidence suggests that Prince Harry's claim of being chased lacks credibility.
Some individuals assert that photographers frequently pursue Meghan, insinuating that she may be involved in tipping them off. These allegations, they argue, are too recurrent to be mere coincidences. Such actions, they argue, undermine her public image, which includes supposed activism and philanthropy, and instead paint a picture of falsehood, criticism of the royal family, and questionable behavior.
