Prince Harry accuses security chief of failing to inform him of terrorist threat

Thank you for subscribing!

The Duke of Sussex was the target of six known terrorist plots ahead of his trip to the UK last month

Prince Harry has accused a security chief of failing to tell him about a threat from terrorist group al-Qaeda in 2023, it has been reported.

The Duke of Sussex's legal team contacted Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood this month, pressing her to take a direct role in determining whether the duke and his family should receive police protection funded by the public purse.

Within the letter, Harry's representatives are said to have claimed the chair of the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures (Ravec) did not pass on information about a terrorist threat despite being made aware, according to The Sunday Times.

US officials were also not told, he claims, even though he resided there at the time.

The FBI are understood to have informed the prince's security team about a threat from al-Qaeda in the later months of the year, the outlet reports, following intelligence they received from messaging app Telegram, referring to Harry's "assassination".

FBI officials were made aware through a shared system of intelligence between the UK and the US, called Five Eyes channels, though he was never informed by the UK.

The newspaper also claims that Harry believes at least one of the Ravec board members has a conflict of interest due to prior involvement in decisions about his protection before joining the body.

The duke's security concerns have come back to the fore in recent weeks, after his trip to the UK last month and the Sussexes' relocation back to Harry's homeland on Wednesday.

The duke travelled back from Montecito, California, accompanied by Meghan and their two children - Archie, aged seven, and Lilibet, five - touching down on British soil this week entirely without police protection.

While in America, Harry had armed protection. In the UK, despite offering to cover the costs himself, the prince is unable to pay for armed guards or intelligence from the police.

A source told the newspaper: "His security team cannot even carry a cricket bat as a means of defence - all they’d have is angry rhetoric and their physical strength if someone attacked him or his family.

"With his return home, the game has changed: the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens and that includes Harry, his wife and his children.

LATEST ROYAL NEWS

"It’s not about the role he has here - it’s about the risk he and his family face, and he cannot simply stop being the son of the King."

Both al-Qaeda and the Taliban have repeatedly targeted Harry with threats, which intensified following the publication of his memoir Spare in 2023, where he claimed to have killed 25 Taliban fighters during his military service in Afghanistan.

Just last week, the Taliban renewed their calls for Harry - who described the killings as "chess pieces taken off the board" - to be made "accountable" for what they described as "crimes against humanity".

He has not had a comprehensive risk assessment since April 2019 - instead, he was to inform Ravec of his intentions to return to the UK 28 days in advance on a "case by case" deal.

Ravec had intended to reassess the duke's security requirements in March of this year, but the process stalled when all risk management boards were suspended owing to a reported backlog - much to the frustration of the prince.

The scale of the danger was emphasised before Harry's most recent visit to Britain in July, when it emerged that he was the target of six known terrorist plots, five of which originated within the UK.

The Home Office has since commissioned an additional review of the dangers facing the Sussexes - though he is said to have lost faith in whether Ravec can fairly assess his security needs.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said last week it was a "private matter" and wished the couple well in their move.

A Home Office spokesman said: "The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security."