Prince Harry’s legal fight has cost UK taxpayers £300k as he continues to moan about removal of his police protection

0
40

PRINCE Harry’s fight to have gun guards when he visits the UK has cost taxpayers almost £300,000 — and is unlikely to be over before the Coronation.

He launched a Judicial Review in the High Court after his armed security was axed when he gave up royal duties.

Prince Harry’s fight to have gun guards when he visits the UK has cost taxpayers almost £300,00

Harry launched a Judicial Review in the High Court after his armed security was axed when he gave up royal duties and wants it back as pictured above

Harry says his family is unsafe in the UK despite armed royal protection for official events – pictured here with wife Meghan, King Charles and Camilla

He branded it “unfair”. He offered to pay for police protection but was told they were not “guns for hire”.

Last night a source said: “He claims not to want taxpayers to foot the bill for his guards — but they are being made to pay hundreds of thousands for his court case.”

Harry, 38, says his family is unsafe in the UK despite armed royal protection for official events and while at Frogmore Cottage in the grounds of Windsor Castle.

It is believed his Home Office case may go before the High Court in early April.

But it is not known if a ruling could be enacted before his father is crowned at Westminster Abbey four weeks later.

Harry and wife Meghan, 41, have yet to confirm if they will be at the May 6 service.

Former Scotland Yard commander John O’Connor said: “To expect protection provided by the state is arrogant and irrational.

“It is only vanity anyway. He only wants protection because he thinks his importance is downgraded without it. The taxpayer should not have to pay a single penny towards this case.”

It has already rumbled on for 18 months and a Freedom of Information Request shows it has so far cost £296,882.87 to defend.

That includes £199,978.52 on legal department costs, £93,268 on general counsel and £660 for court fees.

The Government said it would “not be appropriate” to comment on proceedings.