Prince Harry’s lawyer has revealed that there have been “significant tensions” between the Duke of Sussex and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young.
The revelation was made by Shaheed Fatima QC during a hearing focused on his security in the UK.
Harry is suing the Home Office over a decision not to allow him to pay for police protection for his family and himself when they visit the UK.
READ NEXT: Met Office issues urgent UK health warning as 33C blazing heatwave declared
The Duke of Sussex’s legal team were in the the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday (July 7) to argue in favour of a full judicial review – if successful, he will then be allowed to argue his case at the High Court.
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) made the decision over his security in February 2020, but Prince Harry’s team is challenging that ruling.
The committee agreed he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal security when over here due to his changing status as a member of the royal family.
His lawyers are trying to argue the security arrangements set out in a letter from Ravec, were invalid due to “procedural unfairness” because he was not given the chance to make “informed representations beforehand”.
His QC said he had not been given a “clear and full explanation” of the composition of Ravec and who was involved in its decision-making.
To stay up to date with all the latest news, make sure you sign up to one of our newsletters here.
“He didn’t know at that stage that the royal household was involved at all… he was told it was an independent decision,” she said.
It was around this time that Fatima also disclosed details regarding the tensions between the Duke of Sussex and the Queen’s private secretary.
“In his skeleton, the claimant now refers to objections he might have made to any role being played by officials of the royal household in Ravec’s decision-making – apparently because of personal tensions he felt with them,” said Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office.
“But there is no bias challenge and any such tensions are irrelevant to the undisputed fact of the claimant’s change in status which led to the decision of Ravec.
“The inability of the claimant even now to explain how a process of representations could or would have assisted is striking.”
- Sex Pistols icon Johnny Rotten backs Jacob Rees-Mogg to be new Prime Minister
- Boy, 4, mauled to death by leopard after being dragged from backyard in horror attack
- OnlyFans star accused of killing boyfriend 'wanted for DUI after skipping court'
- Bloke finds out he has ovaries and a uterus after visiting doctor with stomach pain
- Yellowstone park rangers frightened as bison begin to gore tourists
Source: Read Full Article