Prince Harry complains of 'inferior treatment' as he appears in court to appeal downgrade to taxpayer-funded security
8 April 2025, 09:41 | Updated: 8 April 2025, 12:25
Prince Harry arrives in court
Prince Harry has complained of "inferior treatment" as he sat in court to listen to his security case against the Home Office.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
The Duke of Sussex is appealing against the dismissal of his High Court challenge against the Home Office over his security arrangements in the UK.
His lawyer said that Harry had been "singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment" when his security was downgraded.
Shaheed Fatima said that he is not arguing that he should be entitled to the same level of security he had before, but that it should get more consideration.
The Home Office argued that Harry "failed to see the wood for the trees" and said that his claims were "misconceived".
Much of the two-day hearing will take place in open court, but some “highly confidential” evidence will be heard behind closed doors, as it “relates to security arrangements and threat levels and assessments".
Read more: Prince Harry's security case against Home Office returns to Court of Appeal
Harry arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday morning in a black Range Rover. He waved at reporters as he entered the court building, wearing a dark suit with a blue patterned tie.
He did not reply as a reporter asked, "Did you speak to your dad?"
Harry was spotted making notes in court has his lawyer made submissions.
In written submissions to the Court of Appeal, Ms Fatima said: "This appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person."
She continued: "On January 8 2020, (the Duke of Sussex) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they considered they were not being protected by the institution, but they wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the royal family."
Ms Fatima later said that Harry was "not in a position to make any informed representations to Ravec".
She added: (His) security does not appear to have been discussed at any formal Ravec meeting and there are no official notes or detailed minutes recording the approach to be taken to (his) security and the rationale for it."
In written submissions for the Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec's decisions, barrister Sir James Eadie KC said the Duke of Sussex's appeal "involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees".
He said: "(The Home Office) has, and continues to, treat (the duke) in a bespoke manner. He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.
"Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context."
Sir James said: "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.
"(The duke's) challenge to the decision was fairly and accurately analysed by the judge as relying upon 'an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process' and a 'mechanistic, overly literal approach', which was 'misconceived'."
He added: "The appeal is fairly to be characterised in the same way. It involves 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."
The latest stage of the Duke of Sussex's challenge over his security level in the UK after departing for California, the royal's case is being brought before the Court of Appeal.
Harry took legal action against the Home Office over the February 2020 decision of 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 High Court was told that the decision was made as a result of a change in the duke's "status" after he stopped being a "full-time working member of the royal family".
In a judgment in February last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the duke's case and concluded Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.
In 2024, a High Court judge dismissed Harry's claim against the Home Office over security arrangements for himself and his family when they are in the UK.
The duke, 40, challenged a February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the remit of the department, after being told he would no longer be given the "same degree" of personal protective security when visiting.
Harry's lawyers said he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" in the decision, arguing a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him meant the approach to his protection was "unlawful and unfair".
The Government argued Ravec was entitled to conclude the duke's protection should be "bespoke" and considered on a "case-by-case" basis.
Retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair, claiming Harry's lawyers had taken "an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process".
