Prince Harry flashes a smirk at court as battle over taxpayer funded security continues

Prince Harry has arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice for the second of a two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal as part of a legal challenge over his level of taxpayer-funded security in the UK

Prince Harry has arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice for the second of a two-day hearing in his appeal over his taxpayer-funded security arrangements in the UK. The Duke of Sussex looked smiled and said good morning as he turned up at the court wearing a dark suit and waved to reporters as he entered the building as he was whisked inside.

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.

The appeal comes after retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled last year that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful. The Home Office, which has legal responsibility for the committee’s decisions, is opposing the appeal, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court that decisions were taken on a “case-by-case” basis.

Harry was in court for the first day of the hearing yesterday after secretly travelling to the UK from California over the weekend. On his way in, he brushed off any questions about King Charles, with reports suggesting that father and son did not meet despite them both being in the country for several hours together on Sunday.

At yesterday’s hearing, the court was told that Harry has been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment” when it comes to his security arrangements in the UK. Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, said: “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.”

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household. Ms Fatima told the court that 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 royal family. “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, Ms Fatima also said: “On 8 January 2020, (the duke) 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.”

In her written submissions, parts of which were redacted for confidentiality reasons, Ms Fatima said Ravec ruled in 2020 that “there is no basis for publicly funded security support for the duke and duchess within Great Britain”.

The Home Office is defending the appeal and has asked judges to dismiss the challenge and award costs. At the start of his oral arguments, 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.

“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.”

The hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis is due to conclude today with a decision expected in writing at a later date.