The Sussexes Legal Actions Part 3

Started by TLLK, May 13, 2023, 11:07:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

TLLK

May 13, 2023, 11:07:45 AM Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 11:37:14 PM by TLLK
Welcome to the Sussexes legal actions Part 3.

The previous thread can be found here. Duke and Duchess of Sussex All Legal Actions Part 2

Curryong

#1
May 16, 2023, 11:11:39 AM
Omid Scobie and another journalist gave evidence yesterday about the propensity of the alleged past hacking and illegal tapping at the Mirror. The latest has a whistleblower ex journalist at the Sunday Mirror giving evidence.

Prince Harry trial - live: Court hears of 'widespread laughter' at phone-hacking joke | UK News | Sky News

wannable

#2
May 16, 2023, 12:37:26 PM Last Edit: May 16, 2023, 12:40:00 PM by wannable
Harry's security case

Matt Wilkinson, RR for The Sun is at the court hearing.


Matt Wilkinson
@MattSunRoyal

In court for Prince Harry's bid to overturn Home Office decision not to pay for security. Case seems to be:
- decision by RAVEC makes ''no sense'' and beyond its remit
- should be made by the Met Police Commissioner
- Not given opportunity for Harry to make representations to RAVEC

Shaheed Fatima, representing Harry, told the court about refusal to pay for security: ''There was no willingness in RAVEC to entertain any exceptions to the policy or listen to representations. We are not even getting out foot through the door. There is no willingness to listen.''
Matt Wilkinson

RAVEC previously rejected Harry's offer to pay for armed security. It it's skeleton argument, the Home Office state: ''RAVEC unanimously decided that an individual should not be permitted to privately fund their Protective Security provided by the MPS''


Justice Chamberlain suggests Harry is ''seeking completely different type of policing service, protective security officer who goes with principal wherever they go compares it to ''wealthy neighbourhood'' paying for private police patrols. Ms Fatima says there is no 'legal clarity'

Fatima says Harry should've been consulted before RAVEC's decision not to let him pay. Justice Chamberlain suggests RAVEC was deciding policy on behalf of HS on whether protective security is available for money and ''I'm not sure your client had a right to be consulted about that

Robert Palmer, for Home Office, says this request for protective security for an individual, is different to paying for policing of a marathon, football match or wedding, as it needs specialist officers with tactical skills from The Met Police that are only deployed by RAVEC.

RAVEC makes its decisions on providing protective policing (armed cops) based on public interest, risk to individual and amount of resources, but not the willingness of individual to fund the policing privately, Mr Palmer told the court.

Palmer suggests public confidence in RAVEC's mission could be undermined if wealthy individuals received special protection over less wealthy individuals and that special protection could be hired by public individuals if public interest is not justified.

The hearing - which was set to last only an hour - has broken for lunch and will convene this afternoon. Justice Chamberlain says he will not make a judgement today

wannable

#4
May 16, 2023, 05:35:38 PM
Jack Royston
@Jack_Royston

Prince Harry should not be allowed to "buy" armed police'' U.K. Home Office. Harry's lawyers are fighting to keep his 2nd government lawsuit alive after a judge ruled in February it should be thrown out. He may be heading for his first defeat here. (Other than the elephant defeat, DM case)
Prince Harry Should not Be Allowed to 'Buy' Armed Police?U.K. Home Office

TLLK

#5
May 16, 2023, 06:13:31 PM Last Edit: May 16, 2023, 06:48:56 PM by TLLK
Prince Harry told that Met officers are not for hire as private bodyguards

QuotePolice officers cannot be bought as ?private bodyguards for the wealthy?, the Duke of Sussex has been told.
Government and police lawyers said on Tuesday that specialist protection officers ?put themselves in harm?s way? and that this should only be done in the public interest. They are defending a judicial review action by the Duke against the Home Secretary for the decision to refuse his request for police protection.
The Duke has offered to pay the Metropolitan Police for protecting him in his new life as a non-working royal after he was told he would no longer be given the ?same degree? of personal protective security when visiting the UK.
At a preliminary hearing, which will determine whether the matter goes forward for full trial, his lawyers argued that the Police Act 1996 clearly allowed for private individuals to pay for special policing services.
They said that by denying the Duke?s request in 2021, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) exceeded its power and acted unreasonably.
However, lawyers for the Home Secretary said: "There is no legal authority for the proposition that the concept of special police service encompasses the use of police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy.

The article notes that this is one of the five civil actions that the Sussexes have currently going.

FanDianaFancy

#6
May 19, 2023, 04:37:14 AM
Oh goodness. NEXT..,.,..
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Demand Photo Agency Give Them Footage of 'Chase'

Backgrud told him straight in his DEMAND of them.  No honey,. Our laws are so that HE cannot DEMAND or no one else acutaully ? like what the he1ll, lol.
Wrong country Prince. Duke of Dumdumb. Duke of Crazy.

wannable

#8
May 23, 2023, 09:48:05 AM
BREAKING: A judge has refused Prince Harry permission to apply for a judicial review to challenge a decision made by the Home Office that he should not be allowed to pay privately for his own police security when he is in the UK.
Sky News

wannable

#9
May 23, 2023, 09:49:32 AM
Prince Harry loses bid to legally challenge decision not to allow him to pay for police protection in UK
BBC news

Curryong

#10
May 23, 2023, 10:21:17 AM
Oh well, he?ll be getting police protection anyway when he?s in the UK while attending family events. He may well be staying in an apartment at BP if he attends anything significant. So he?ll be saving money as it?s not going to trial. .

TLLK

#11
May 23, 2023, 10:59:27 AM
The Sussexes were always going to have the police protection for official royal events ie: the Jubilee but if there's a private event,  then they will  have to rely on their current  personal security.   

wannable

#12
May 23, 2023, 11:09:35 AM Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 11:12:16 AM by wannable
Yes, as was his trip to the coronation.

The next few days we'll see articles about the court expenses (being demanded by citizens in social media under the breaking news)

sara8150

#16
May 23, 2023, 03:27:53 PM
Quote"The Royal Household is not a public authority within the meaning of the FOI Acts, and is therefore exempt from their provisions," according to the royal family website.

This rule allows the royal family to exercise more privacy over their day-to-day duties and financials. For instance, while the royal household releases an annual financial report, the UK public is prevented from accessing detailed information on its spending.
Kept private matters for Buckingham Palace and sovereign also

QuoteOne royal perk is that members of the king's family do not have to take part in jury duty. In normal instances in the United Kingdom, evading jury duty results in a fine of up to ?1,000, or around $1,200.

However, for the king and members of his immediate family, jury duty is not required, The Guardian reported.
NEVER!! No members of the royal family will present for jury

QuoteKing Charles enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning he can't be prosecuted under a civil or criminal investigation.

This rule also applied to the late Queen Elizabeth II. According to previous guidance on the royal family's official website, "although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law," Queen Elizabeth was careful to ensure that activities in her personal capacity were carried out in strict accordance with the law.
Not back to late HM Queen Elizabeth?s death

wannable

#17
May 23, 2023, 08:59:47 PM
HARRY COURT DEFEAT Prince Harry's failed bid to pay for own armed police cost taxpayers over GBP300,000

Figures revealed in a Freedom of Information request show taxpayers have so far footed a bill of
GBP199,978.52 on government legal department costs,
GBP93,268 on general counsel,
GBP660 for court fees,
GBP2,958 on email disclosure and
GBP16.55 for a courier

Harry's lawyers also plan to challenge an application for him to pay for the government's costs defending last week's case thought to be at least
GBP8,000.  :notamused:

Prince Harry?s failed bid to pay for own armed police cost taxpayers over ?300,000 | The Sun

Kristeh-H

#19
May 23, 2023, 09:27:21 PM
It seems to me that Harry ought to have to pay for the government's court costs.  This case always seemed ridiculous.  Harry and Meghan had every right to quit working as royals and to become private citizens if that is what they wanted and felt was best for them.  But private citizens are not entitled to government security.  It's not pay for hire.  I can't go out and hire the U.S. Secret Service to protect my family and home.  That's crazy. 

sara8150

#20
May 23, 2023, 11:14:51 PM
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions