Just In: Prince Harry ‘could cite Taylor Swift police escort’ in security appeal…..See More

Source says entourage provided for singer could bolster Duke of Sussex’s case for increased protection

Prince Harry could use the “troubling” decision to allow Taylor Swift a police escort to bolster his own security case against the Government, The Telegraph understands.

The Duke of Sussex believes that Scotland Yard’s decision to provide the singer with a taxpayer-funded escort following political intervention highlights inconsistencies in approach.

Swift was granted a blue-light police escort to her Wembley Stadium shows in August after terror threats forced the cancellation of her Vienna shows earlier that month.

Andrea Swift, the star’s mother and manager, was said to have threatened to cancel the gigs before she was granted additional security, but the escort caused anger because senior Government figures had reportedly pressured the Metropolitan Police to acquiesce.

The Duke has been embroiled in a row over his right to automatic police protection after stepping back from public duties.

He lost a legal battle with the Home Office earlier this year but is due to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal in April.

The Duke’s spokesman declined to comment on the case but a source close to the situation said the Swift episode showed that exemptions to security policy could be made.

The decision to provide a police escort for Taylor Swift has exposed troubling inconsistencies in how protection decisions are reached,” the source said.

“Whilst Prince Harry is denied protection despite consistent, long-standing and well-documented threats, we saw extraordinary measures being taken here – including the Met seeking counsel from the Attorney General – for a visiting performer – because that performer’s manager and parent threatened to pull her out if she wasn’t given the protection they wanted for her.”

The source added the justification of terrorism threats, which were not directed at Swift herself, felt “particularly hollow” given that similar and consistent threats were made against the Duke.

Neil Basu, a former assistant commissioner of the Met police, told The Telegraph he believed the force had rightly agreed to protect Swift in order to mitigate risk and to manage “the political and possible economic impact of getting it wrong or cancelling the show”.

He said: “I would have made the same decision. But the same logic applies surely to the youngest son and family of our King?”

Mr Basu, who was also the Met’s counter terror chief, said that during his tenure from 2018 until 2021, there was a “very real” and “disgusting” threat against the Sussexes that was unlikely to have lessened with the passage of time, not least owing to the couple’s divisive departure from the UK and the continued rise of the far-Right

There remains a broad spectrum of threats from online actors/trolls stirring hate as well as organised terror groups against prominent public figures, and the Sussex family will be one of the most prominent targets,” he added.

The dangers to Taylor Swift were and are real, but so are those faced by Prince Harry and his family.

“There may well be no imminent threat, but there is always risk, risk that can be mitigated by the tactics used by the Met Police on the day.”

The Met was at first reluctant to provide Swift with a police escort as an initial security assessment concluded the service, typically reserved for senior royals and politicians, was not necessary.

Senior sources at the time expressed concern that providing such a high level of security when no specific threat had been identified would set a “worrying precedent” and lead to similar demands from other celebrities.

But following reported pressure from senior government figures said to include Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, the force asked Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, for legal advice on whether it could break with normal protocol. It eventually relented, leading to the deployment of the Special Escort Group.

Swift’s mother was said to have negotiated directly with senior Met Police officers and even with Sue Gray, who was the Prime Minister’s chief of staff at the time.

The source told The Telegraph: “The Met Police claims operational independence, yet we had both the mayor and Home Secretary involved in discussions before the decision was finalised.

“When did it become normal protocol for the Home Secretary to be involved in concert security arrangements?”

Last month, James Cleverly, the shadow home secretary, accused Labour of overruling the police and security services’ threat assessment in return for free tickets to Swift’s concerts.

Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Khan and Ms Cooper all attended one of the gigs. Mr Cleverly said: “Political interference in policing… is not a direction the UK should travel in

Downing Street has rejected calls for an independent inquiry into how the decision was made.

On Thursday night, a Met police spokesman said that the force was “operationally independent”, adding: “Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case.

“It is our long-standing position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”

The Duke applied for a judicial review after the Home Office committee responsible for VIP security arrangements declared in February 2020 that he and his family were no longer entitled to the “same degree” of personal security when visiting Britain.

Instead, it created a “bespoke” approach that involved assessing each visit on its merits but which has resulted in the Duke being denied police protection on each subsequent return to the UK.

His legal challenge was based on an alleged lack of transparency about the Royal and VIP Executive Committee’s composition and processes and he argued that he had been “singled out” and treated “less favourably” than others.

In June, the Court of Appeal granted him leave to challenge the judgment, concluding that there was a “real prospect of success” in the argument that the committee should have followed its own written policy.

The Home Office was approached for comment.