During a recent hearing at the Court of Appeal, the Duke of Sussex’s legal team argued that he had been subjected to unjust and inferior treatment regarding the level of security provided to him in the UK. Prince Harry is challenging a decision that ruled he should not receive the same level of police protection as other working members of the Royal Family. His barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, highlighted that the prince had gone through a unique and unfair process in the initial decision-making.
The security arrangements for Prince Harry in the UK are currently determined on a case-by-case basis, similar to other high-profile visitors to the country. In court, Prince Harry was seen sitting with his legal team, taking notes in the back row. While it is not expected for him to provide evidence during the two-day hearing, his case challenges the decision-making process of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) regarding his security after stepping down from his royal duties in 2020.
The Home Office, which holds legal responsibility for Ravec’s decisions, is opposing the appeal on behalf of the committee. Prince Harry’s legal team argued that Ravec did not follow standard procedures and failed to consider expert analysis of the risks he faces. The prince’s submissions emphasize his right to be informed about the factors influencing the decisions about his security. Despite the court battle, Prince Harry previously lost a legal challenge to privately fund his police protection in 2023.
While the majority of the proceedings are public, discussions involving confidential information about security arrangements and threats will be held privately. The Court of Appeal will issue a written decision on the matter at a later date. Overall, Prince Harry’s case revolves around the fairness and transparency of the security arrangements made for him in the UK post his royal tenure
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
