Prince Harry's legal battle with the Home Office over police protection for the Sussexes has cost the taxpayer £100,000 so far, it was claimed today.
The Duke of Sussex, 37, has been taking legal action against the department after being told he would no longer be given the 'same degree' of personal protective security when visiting from the US.
His representatives have previously told of how he wants to bring wife Meghan Markle and their children Archie and Lilibet to visit from the US, but that they are 'unable to return to his home' because it is too dangerous.
The case is understood to have cost the Home Office £90,094.79 from September 2021 and May earlier this year. That sum is understood to include £55,254 on the government's Legal Department, £34,824 on counsel and £16.55 on couriers, The Sun reports.
Two hearings have taken place at the High Court in London since May, so it is predicted that the total bill will surpass £100,000. And that figure will rise further after a judge granted Harry's legal team permission for part of his claim to have a judicial review into the Home Office's decision.
The cost to the taxpayer would be reduced if the Home Office is awarded its costs back by the court and the Whitehall department run by Priti Patel has already said it will demand their legal costs back from Harry if his High Court battle fails.
MailOnline has asked Schillings, the Duke of Sussex's UK lawyers, and the Home Office to comment.
Last week Harry won the right to bring a High Court challenge against the Home Office over his security arrangements in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex launched legal action after he was told he would no longer be given the 'same degree' of personal protective security while on visits after stepping back from Royal Family duties and moving to the US.
A High Court judge said Harry had an 'arguable' case on four of the five grounds on which he brought his claim, and that his lawyers will be able to make his arguments at a judicial review of the Home Office decision.
Justice Jonathan Swift said at the Royal Courts of Justice in London: 'The application for permission to apply for judicial review is allowed in part and refused in part.'
Harry's claim that he should have been told exactly who made the decision, so he could question their 'appropriateness', was rejected by the judge.
His barrister, Shaheed Fatima QC, told the High Court the duke was not informed 'the Royal Household' had been involved in the decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to deny automatic security, after originally being told 'it was an independent decision'.
The judge noted that the royal's lawyers had claimed he 'should have been told who the members of Ravec were', and 'had the opportunity to make representations to Ravec's chairman Sir Richard Mottram on the appropriateness of certain individuals'.
But Judge Swift said while the prince 'may have had disagreements with Ravec committee members, there was no evidence any had approached decisions with a closed mind'.
The duke's challenge concerns the February 2020 decision of Ravec that he would no longer be given the 'same degree' of personal protective security when visiting since quitting the UK and his royal duties.
0 Comments