'Drunken' Saudi princess wins fight to hide her identity in court as she's accused of sexually harassing her British bodyguard



Persuaded: Employment judge Jeremy Burns granted a restricted reporting order

A Saudi princess accused of sexually harassing her burly British bodyguard was told yesterday her identity can remain a secret.

Her 40-year-old minder, who earned £100,000 a year guarding her family, claims the royal was engaged in drinking, illegal drug-taking and ‘sexually promiscuous’ behaviour.

The minder also says that she once kicked him in the groin ‘knowing full well that he was recovering from invasive surgery to that area’, and bit another member of staff in the cheek.

But lawyers for the princess successfully persuaded a court that she should be shielded from publicity as her life and that of her family could be put at risk.

It is the latest controversial ruling granting privacy to the rich and powerful after allegations about their improper behaviour.

The princess’s husband – a ‘successful businessman’ – was also granted anonymity over claims he was a ‘viewer of gay porn websites’.

The princess also claimed ‘the allegations could be used to undermine members of her family in high government positions’.

Lawyers acting for the Daily Mail and The Times had argued that justice should be done openly and in public – and that it would undermine confidence in the justice system if preferential treatment appeared to be given to a member of a foreign royal family.

The minder, who is claiming sexual harassment and constructive dismissal and was known to the employment tribunal as ‘A’, was employed in 2003 to provide ‘close protection’ for the princess.

In July last year he felt compelled to resign as he ‘felt threatened by the risk of sexual harassment’.

He claimed the princess would come back late at night ‘excessively drunk’. ‘The princess was sick in A’s accommodation and would fall asleep there. He found it very stressful as it was his job to protect her but it became increasingly difficult to protect her from herself,’ court papers said.

Lawyers for the Daily Mail and The Times argued that justice should be done openly - but the judge ruled that the princess is more likely to attend if there is no adverse publicity

On trips abroad, he had to share rooms with other members of staff ‘to protect himself’ from the advances of the princess, it was alleged.

At times, the princess would complain to her bodyguard that her husband – a Saudi prince – had been looking at ‘websites with homosexual content’. She would show him the sites – which he found stressful. He also claims she illegally obtained sedative drugs through another member of staff.

The Central London tribunal heard that after he resigned the bodyguard told his former employers he would ‘go public’ unless a ‘reasonable offer’ was made and that ‘current events highlight the treatment of staff by other members of your family’.

This referred to a Saudi royal being convicted for murdering his manservant last year, said Akhlaq Choudhury, for the princess.

But he added: ‘The royal family in that country is extended beyond any standard we would recognise – it’s many thousands of people. Any connection between these events and those is strongly rejected.’

Gary Self, for the bodyguard, said the princess’s position amounted to, ‘I am very rich and important and my husband is also rich and important and therefore there is another reason why it (open court) shouldn’t apply to me’.

Adam Wolanski, representing the newspapers, argued: ‘Parties have to accept embarrassment and damage to their reputation as a possible consequence of being involved in litigation.’

Employment judge Jeremy Burns granted a Restricted Reporting Order. He said: ‘She is far more likely to come to London to have the case tried if she is spared adverse publicity.’ The case will be heard later this year.