The Duke of Sussex claimed he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”, as he appeared at the high court in London in the latest round of legal action over his security arrangements while he is in the UK.
Prince Harry is challenging the dismissal of his high court legal action against the Home Office last year over the decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.
The duke, 40, sat behind his legal team in a packed courtroom as his barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the appeal court Sir Peter Lane had erred when that judge ruled last year that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after Harry and Meghan stepped down as senior working royals, was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
Fatima told the court Ravec had failed to apply its own terms of reference by not getting an assessment from an “expert specialist body”, called the risk management board (RMB), and instead came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process’”.
“The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’,” she said. “In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”
Fatima added that Harry’s case was not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously, but that he should be “subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary”.
In written submissions, parts of which were redacted for security reasons, she said the duke has still not been provided with an RMB analysis despite recent security incidents: for example his security team had been informed “Al-Qaeda recently called for [Harry] to be murdered” in a document, saying his “assassination would please the Muslim community”. She also referenced an incident in May 2023 when Harry and Meghan were involved in a “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City”.
The grounds of the appeal were that the judge had erred in his conclusion there was “good reason” to depart from Ravec’s terms of reference and that Ravec could properly decide that the duke was not within the “other VIP” category without procuring the analysis of the RMB, she said. The judge had also erred by concluding Harry was not in an analogous position to those in the category.
The core question raised by this appeal is whether Ravec has given a “clear, logical and convincing reason” for failing to do an RMB assessment, she said. “The answer to that question is no.”
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office – which has legal responsibility for Ravec - said Harry’s appeal involved a “continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.
It was not that personal security of the kind previously provided would under no circumstances be provided, rather that “security would not be provided on the same basis as before” because of his change in status to no longer being a working royal and living abroad.
Eadie said in written submissions no RMB was done “because [Harry] instead has had created for him and his particular circumstances a bespoke, individualised, decision-making process which considers what is appropriate and justified by way of protective security in relation to each visit he wishes to undertake to Great Britain”.
The previous judge could accept “bespoke was better suited” and the duke would be “better served by that approach”.
He said Sir Richard Mottram, the then chair of Ravec, had noted that an RMB assessment would be “difficult to produce in an effective manner”. Mottram had been provided with updated threat assessments of various kinds specific to the duke which informed his understanding of risk. “This approach was at all times a matter for the expert judgment of Ravec and the judge was right to find that it was lawful.”
Eadie said “bare disagreement” with the previous ruling and the Ravec decision, was the “gravamen” – or essence – of Harry’s complaint, and “does not amount to a ground of appeal”.
The appeal court hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis is due to be heard over two days with a decision expected at a later date.
In February 2020, Ravec decided that the duke and his family should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country, after they moved to the US.
After Harry took legal action the following year, the high court heard in 2023 that an offer from Harry to pay for security himself had been refused, with the duke’s lawyers claiming he “does not feel safe” when visiting under the new security arrangements.
The case continues on Wednesday, when some of the evidence will be heard in private due to security concerns.
