Saudi princess in sexual harassment row allowed to hide identityBy IANS
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
LONDON - A Saudi princess accused of sexually harassing her British bodyguard has been allowed to hide her identity in court, a media report said Tuesday.
Her 40-year-old bodyguard claims that the royal was engaged in drinking, illegal drug-taking and ’sexually promiscuous’ behaviour, the Daily Mail reported.
The guard, who earned 100,000 pounds a year guarding her family, says that she once kicked him in the groin “knowing fully well that he was recovering from invasive surgery to that area”, and bit another member of staff in the cheek.
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.
Employment judge Jeremy Burns has granted a restricted reporting order. It is the latest controversial ruling granting privacy to the rich and powerful after allegations about their improper behaviour, the newspaper said.
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’.
The minder who 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.
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.
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”.