Prince Harry's plea torn apart in court battle as Duke spends 'most of time abroad'

Prince to live abroad prompted the change to his UK security arrangements, the Court of Appeal was told in the battle over his taxpayer-funded UK protection. of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.

The has argued he can not bring his and two children, Archie, five and Lilibet, three, to the UK, because he does not feel safe, despite being offered security if there is a specific threat. 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.

In the latest appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Harry's lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC, warned the royal's safety, security and life are "at stake". But the Home Office, which has legal responsibility for Ravec's decisions, is opposing the challenge. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said: “It’s important to emphasise that the decision was not that personal security of the kind previously provided would under no circumstances be provided.

READ MORE:

READ MORE:

"Rather it was simply that that security would not be provided on the same basis as before because of his (the duke’s) change of status and because he was now going to live abroad for the majority of his time."

During the two-day hearing, he also said Ravec was faced with a “unique set of circumstances”. He told the court: “There is no proper basis for challenging the decision that the bespoke assessment was appropriate… What mattered was the question of the substance of how they were going to deal with this unique set of circumstances.” The barrister later said the committee does not proceed “by way of comparison” between people under its remit.

Meanwhile, at the end of the two-day appeal, Ms Fatima for the duke, said the “human dimension” of the case must not be forgotten. She continued: “There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security, and whose life is at stake.

“There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.” Ms Fatima said this could be seen in the “clear terms of the decision letter” discussed during a private session of the hearing.

She added: “We do say that his presence here, and throughout this appeal, is a potent illustration, were one needed, of how much this appeal means to him and his family.”

Earlier in the appeal, Ms Fatima said Ravec came up with a “different and so-called bespoke process” for Harry, who lives in the United States. She continued: “The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”

The barrister told judges the bespoke process involves Ravec considering why Harry would attend a particular event “even though that is plainly irrelevant to the question of security”.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos said the Court of Appeal’s decision would be given in writing at a later date, which was “most unlikely” to be before Easter. Sir Geoffrey, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, said: “Plainly we will take our time to consider our judgments.”