Tom Symonds of BBC News reported that a government barrister informed the Court of Appeal that Prince Harry’s decision to withdraw from his role as a working royal led to a “unique set of circumstances.” The barrister, Sir James Eadie KC, emphasized the importance of adopting a flexible approach to determining the level of personal security Prince Harry should receive after stepping back in early 2020. At the center of the appeal is the duke’s request to reverse a decision to reduce the police protection provided to him at public expense during his visits to the UK. According to his barrister, Prince Harry’s safety is a matter of life and death, and the security measures he has been given are significantly inferior.
During the court hearing, Prince Harry was accompanied by a crowd of paparazzi and spectators eagerly waiting for his arrival. The duke sat beside his solicitor, occasionally jotting down notes as Sir James presented the government’s stance. Sir James emphasized that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), responsible for determining security levels, operates based on “royal prerogative” rather than legal mandates. He highlighted that Sir Richard Mottram, the committee’s chair, held the ultimate responsibility for any erroneous decisions made by Ravec. The government maintains that the committee duly considered Prince Harry’s unique circumstances when evaluating his security requirements.
Unlike many senior members of the Royal Family, Prince Harry opted to reside abroad and abstain from official duties. His relocation to California in 2020, underscored by concerns for his family’s safety, illustrated the distinctive nature of his situation. Sir James asserted that the committee’s primary aim was to make informed security judgments utilizing their expertise. The deliberation regarding Prince Harry’s security was meticulous, ensuring all aspects were scrutinized. Despite the absence of detailed discussions about Prince Harry’s present security arrangements in open court, a closed hearing addressed more classified information. The Home Office, representing Ravec’s decisions, opposes the appeal on their behalf, with the final decision expected to be based on the court’s deliberations
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
