Prince Harry was “unfairly treated less favorably than others” because of security arrangements while in the UK, a court has heard.
Duke of Sussex He is taking legal action against the Home Office over a decision in February 2020 that meant he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security during his visit.
The decision was taken by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Personalities of the Royal Family and the Public (Ravec).
Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the duke, said in her written submission: “Ravec should have taken into account the ‘impact’ a successful attack would have on the claimant, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal family – where he was born and which he would have for the rest of his life – and his ongoing charitable work.” and services to the public.
“Ravec should have particularly taken into account the impact on the reputation of the United Kingdom of a successful attack on the claimant.”
He said Harry’s position was that “he should be given state security in light of the threats/risks he faces” and argued that he had been “unfairly treated less favorably than others” in written submissions, which had largely been corrected.
Harry is not attending the hearing at the High Court, where most of the case will be heard in camera over the next three days, and the verdict is expected at a later date.
The lawyer who brought the case said: “The starting point of this case is the person’s right to safety and security; there can be no more important right than that.”
He said the Duke had “dealt fully and properly with the evidence” and that his “illegal and unfair treatment” was clear from the documents.
Harry said he asked the court to treat Ravec the way he “treats other people,” arguing that Ravec chose “not to follow his own written policy.”
He noted that no Risk Management Board (“RMB”) risk analysis had been carried out, adding: “This is the first time Ravec has decided to deviate from its policy in this way.”
Ms Fatima said: “No good reason was given for excluding the claimant in this way.”
He said Ravec did not tell Harry, who lives in California with his wife Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet, that he was not treated “consistently and equally” with others and why, and argued that he had the right to make a statement before the decision. was made.
Harry’s position ‘materially changed’
Sir James Eadie KC, of the Home Office, said in written submissions that Harry was treated in a “bespoke” manner, legally due to security arrangements.
The Metropolitan Police said Ravec, who provides security arrangements for royals and others with the Cabinet Office and the royal family in attendance, took into account “the risk of a successful attack on this individual” in making the decision.
“In summary, Ravec considers the threat an individual faces, evaluated according to the capability and intent of hostile actors, taking into account that individual’s vulnerability to such an attack and the impact of such an attack on the interests of the state,” he said.
“His position had changed materially as he would no longer be a working member of the royal family and would spend much of his time abroad.
“Under these circumstances, protective security will not be available as before. However, he will be provided with protective security, especially and in certain cases, while he is in Great Britain.”
But Ms Fatima argued that the “case by case” security provision led to “extreme uncertainty”.
Read more:
Harry wins privacy trial bid against Daily Mail publisher
Palace is considering options after royals mentioned in ‘skin color’ line
Diana’s ‘tragic death’
Sir James stated that Princess Diana’s “tragic death” was brought up during the decision-making process, adding that “there would likely be significant public distress if a successful attack was carried out on the plaintiff”.
“The decision and its subsequent implementation ensured a lawful balancing of relevant factors in carrying out the risk, impact and threat assessment,” he added.
He said Ravec’s decision meant Harry could continue to be provided with security at public expense “to the extent deemed appropriate under the particular circumstances”, as was the case during his visit to the UK in June and July 2021 for commemorative events of his late mother.
But in written submissions, the duke’s lawyers said that during the journey his car was “banned by paparazzi” at the WellChild garden party and afternoon tea at Kew Gardens in west London on June 30, after which a member of his private security team intercepted his vehicle. reported problems with the “safety provision”.
Sir James said details were not provided until June 11, making it “materially later” than the 28 days Ravec had requested for protective security requests on a case-by-case basis.
The hearing is one of five High Court claims involving the Duke, including a sweeping case against newspaper publishers.
Earlier this year he permission denied A new legal challenge has been brought against the Ministry of Internal Affairs over its decision not to allow Ravec to pay privately for protective security.