Prince Harry winning his legal challenge against the Home Office could have troubling consequences, a royal commentator has claimed.
The Duke of Sussex is bringing his challenge to the courts as he battles the decision to remove the “same degree” of personal protective security he was previously afforded.
The move was enacted in February 2020 by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
Speaking on GB News, Levin claimed the decision is “perfectly reasonable” when you consider the precedent that could be set by Harry still having the same level of protection.
Angela Levin is concerned about the prospect of Harry being successful in his bid for heightened security
REUTERS / GB NEWS
“As he is not a member of the Royal Family in the same way as others, all sorts of people will come after this level of protection”, she said.
“Heads of companies, people who come from abroad on a visit, and actually there won’t be anybody left on the street.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Prince HarryPA“They will be looking after big numbers of high grade people. They don’t want to do that. I think that’s perfectly reasonable.”
While Harry is willing to pay for his own security costs, he remains intent on being afforded the best possible protection available in Britain.
Levin told the Duke to be realistic and accept that he is no longer a “top royal”.
“He can get good protection officers but not the best”, she said.
“He moans that he is not getting the best because they know what is going on. They have better intelligence.
“I don’t think he can say he deserves that anymore. He has got to move on. He and Meghan want separate protection officers.
“That is going to cause us an enormous amount of money and I don’t think they want to do that.”
The Duke was cleared to bring the challenge in July 2022 and the claim will be heard over two-and-a-half-days starting from Tuesday.
The hearing is one of the five High Court claims the duke is involved in, including extensive litigation against newspaper publishers.
Earlier this year, he was refused permission to bring a further legal challenge against the Home Office over a Ravec decision that he should not be allowed to pay privately for protective security.
