Prince Harry says he was 'singled out' and 'forced' to quit royal life in court showdown

Prince "singled out for inferior treatment" and "forced to step back" from royal life as he makes another court bid to have his taxpayer-funded security reinstated. The made a surprise appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice in London today after secretly travelling to the UK.

On his way in, he brushed off any questions about , with reports suggesting that father and son did not meet despite them both being in the country for several hours together yesterday. Harry is challenging the dismissal of his High Court legal action 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 taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.

During a previous hearing at the High Court over his security arrangements, it was told that Harry believes his children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet cannot "feel at home" in the UK if it is "not possible to keep them safe" there. Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that Ravec's decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was not irrational or procedurally unfair.

READ MORE:

READ MORE:

But opening Harry's case today at the Court of Appeal, his barrister Shaheed Fatima KC said the Duke had been "singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment". She stated: "When Ravec made its February 2020 decision about the appellant's protective security, it did not apply its own terms of reference to that decision-making process."

She continued to say Ravec did not get an assessment from an "expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB" and came up with a "different and so-called 'bespoke process'".

She said: "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. Not only does this bespoke process not involve the RMB, it also involves Ravec considering the reason why the appellant is attending a particular event, even though that is plainly irrelevant to the question of security."

Ms Fatima added: "The appellant's case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the . The appellant's case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and 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 to the Court of Appeal, Ms Fatima also 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 February 2020, the body 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.

Barristers for the Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec's decisions, claimed that the committee decided that Harry would not be provided protective security "on the same basis as before" due to him no longer being a working member of the royal family and living abroad most of the time, and that decisions were taken on a "case-by-case" basis. Sir Peter dismissed Harry's claim in February last year, and initially denied him permission to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.

But the appeal court gave him the green light to challenge the decision in June last year, and ordered earlier this month that parts of the hearing concerning "confidential facts" should be held in private, meaning the press and public cannot attend.

The Home Office is defending the appeal and has asked judges to dismiss the challenge and award costs. In written submissions, Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said the duke’s appeal "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 barrister continued: "The defendant recognises that the claimant disagrees vehemently with the decision and its subsequent application, including the particular protective security tactics which have and have not been authorised in his case from time to time. As the judge noted, the claimant is entitled to hold and express those views. But they are legally irrelevant.”

Sir James said it was “contemporaneously” identified by the then-chair of Ravec Sir Richard Mottram that an RMB assessment would be “difficult to produce in an effective manner”. The barrister also said: “The defendant has, and continues to, treat the claimant 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.” The barrister said that the previous judge could accept “that the bespoke process was better suited” to Harry’s circumstances, continuing: “The defendant implemented the bespoke process for the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant is already treated exceptionally. The defendant was not rationally required to go still further.”

Sir James added: “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.”