The Duke of Sussex sent an email claiming that he and his wife could not afford their own security until they could earn their own money, court documents have revealed.
The message has been disclosed in papers as part of Prince Harry’s bid to rule that the publishers of the Mail on Sunday libelled him with an article about his quest for police protection when he and his family visit the UK.
The court heard that in an April 2020 email to Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, Harry “made it clear we couldn’t afford private security until we were able to earn”.
Harry’s lead attorney asked Judge Matthew Nickin either to strike out the publisher’s defence or to deliver a summary judgment, which would be a ruling in the prince’s favor without going to trial.
The prince is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over the story which was published 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.”
ANL is contesting the claim, arguing the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause “serious harm” to his reputation.
The duke’s challenge against the Home Office came about after he was told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting.
Harry’s legal team argued the security arrangements were invalid due to “procedural unfairness” because he was not given an opportunity to make “informed representations beforehand”.
However, lawyers for the Home Office previously said Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that Harry’s security arrangements will be considered on a “case by case” basis.
At a preliminary hearing in the libel claim on Friday, the High Court in London heard the duke’s bid to strike out ANL’s “honest opinion” defence or grant judgment in his favour on it.
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 scheduled to give a ruling at a later date
