Prince Harry 'complained he couldn't afford security after quitting royals'
Prince Harry made it clear that he and Meghan Markle could not afford private security after quitting royal duties until they were able to earn their own money, the High Court heard.
The Duke of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Limited for libel over an article alleging he tried to hush up his separate legal challenge over the British government's refusal to let him pay for police security when he and his family visit the UK.
Harry, 38, and Meghan lost their publicly-funded UK police protection when they stepped down as senior working royals and moved to the US in 2020.
His lawyers told the court the Duke of Sussex is reluctant to bring his children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, to Britain as it is not safe.
Harry said he wanted to pay personally for police security, but the government said it was not possible. Last year, a judge gave Harry permission to sue the government but the case has yet to come to trial.
Kate Middleton swears by £19.99 rosehip oil that helps 'reduce wrinkles & scars'
Harry and Meghan stepped down as senior royals in 2020Harry is now suing Associate Newspapers over a story published online and in The Mail on Sunday in February 2022 under the headline: "Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret... then - just minutes after the story broke - his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute."
He claims the newspaper libelled him when it suggested that the prince lied in his initial public statements about the lawsuit against the government.
In July, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the article was defamatory, allowing the case to proceed. The judge has not yet considered issues such as whether the story was accurate or in the public interest.
ANL is contesting the claim, arguing the article expressed an "honest opinion" and did not cause "serious harm" to Harry's reputation.
Justin Rushbrooke KC, for Harry, said the Mail on Sunday articles "purported to reveal, in sensational terms" that information from court documents filed by the duke "contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK".
The court was told that the claim involves two statements provided to journalists in January 2022 on Harry's behalf, one that could be quoted publicly and a second to be paraphrased as background information, over the duke's decision to bring legal action against the Home Office.
The court heard that in the public statement, Harry and his family were described as "unable to return to his home" due to the lack of police protection needed in the UK.
The statement continued: "The duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.
"That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer."
Andrew Caldecott KC, for ANL, said that the bid to end their defence without a trial was "wholly without merit" and that "the whole case is built on sand".
Kate rules out receiving romantic gift from Prince William on Valentine's Day
He said in written submissions: "The claimant was responsible for press statements that said he would pay for security when he had never expressed any willingness to pay until after the judicial review."
Mr Caldecott later claimed that in an April 2020 email to Sir Edward Young, the Queen's private secretary at the time, Harry "made it clear we couldn't afford private security until we were able to earn".
The barrister added that Harry's offer at Sandringham was presented "as an offer to 'pay or contribute' made to the family, not to Government".
He continued: "The press statement then refers to 'another attempt at negotiations' being 'also rejected'.
"Taken alone, that must suggest an attempt at negotiations with Government."
The hearing concluded on Friday afternoon, with Mr Justice Nicklin giving a ruling at a later date.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
