- Prince Harry security dispute
- Court case against Home Office
- Ravec decision challenged
A court has been informed that Prince Harry “has been treated less favourably than others in an unjustifiable manner” regarding his security arrangements in the United Kingdom.
The repercussions of an assault on the Duke of Sussex on the reputation of the United Kingdom, according to his solicitors, should have been considered.
The Duke of Sussex is initiating legal proceedings against the Home Office in response to a February 2020 decision that prohibited him from receiving the “same degree” of personal protective security during his visits.
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) rendered the decision.
“Ravec should have considered the ‘impact’ that a successful attack on the claimant would have, bearing in mind his status, background, and profile within the Royal Family — which he was born into and will remain a member of for the rest of his life — as well as his ongoing charity work and service to the public,” said Shaheed Fatima KC, who is representing the duke, in a written submission.
Ravec should have mainly considered the reputational repercussions of a successful attack on the claimant in the United Kingdom.
She stated that Harry’s stance is “that he should be granted state security in light of the threats/risks he faces” and that his heavily redacted written submissions argue he has been “unjustifiably treated less favourably than others.”
Court Proceedings Unfolding
Harry will miss the three-day High Court hearing, which will be held in secret. A ruling is expected later.
His counsel noted from the opening, “This matter concerns an individual’s right to security and safety. No other right is more fundamental.”
The documents showed the duke was “completely and appropriately informed about the evidence,” she said. Additionally, she mentioned that he had received “illegal and unfair treatment.”
“Take a step towards financial freedom – claim your free Webull shares now!”
She stated that Harry requests that the court be treated as Ravec “has treated other people.” She contends that Ravec “has chosen not to follow its own written policy.”
Moreover, she asserted that the Risk Management Board had not undertaken any risk assessment. Additionally, she added, “This is the first time Ravec has ever deviated from its policy in this manner.”
Ms Fatima stated there is no valid justification for singling out the claimant in this manner.
She argued that Harry, who currently resides in California with his wife Meghan and children Archie and Lilibet, was not being treated “consistently and equally” with others, that Ravec failed to inform him of this, and that he was entitled to present arguments before the decision being made.
“Harry’s position has changed significantly”
In written arguments, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, stated that Harry’s security arrangements had been handled in a “bespoke” and lawful fashion.
He stated that Ravec, which provides security arrangements for royals and others in collaboration with the Cabinet Office, the Metropolitan Police, and the royal household, considers “the risk of a successful attack on that individual” when making the determination.
In essence, Ravec evaluates the threat an individual confronts by considering the capability and intent of hostile actors, the individual’s susceptibility to such an assault, and the repercussions such an assault would have on the state’s interests, he explained.
“Since he would spend most of his time abroad, his position changed. Additionally, he would no longer be an active member of the royal family.”
“Protectionary security would not be provided on the same basis as before under those conditions.” Nevertheless, under particular conditions, he would be granted protective security in the United Kingdom.
However, according to Ms. Fatima, “case-by-case” security provisions result in “excessive uncertainty.”
The ‘tragic demise’ of Diana
Sir James stated that the “tragic death” of Princess Diana was considered during the deliberation process. He added that “a successful assault on the claimant would almost certainly provoke significant public outrage.”
He further stated that the decision amounted to a lawful weighing of pertinent factors. This included its subsequent implementation while evaluating risk, impact, and threat.
He stated that Ravec’s decision meant Harry could continue to receive publicly funded security “to the extent deemed appropriate in certain circumstances,” such as during his June and July 2021 visit to the United Kingdom for his mother’s memorial services.
However, the duke’s solicitors stated in written arguments that his vehicle was “interdicted by paparazzi” on 30 June at a WellChild garden party and afternoon tea in Kew Gardens, west London, during the trip and that a member of his private security team “reported issues” with his “security provision” afterwards.
According to Sir James, the provision of details was delayed until 11 June. This timeframe was “significantly later” than the 28 days stipulated by Ravec for individualized requests for protective security.
The hearing is one of the duke’s five claims before the High Court. He is also embroiled in a protracted legal battle against newspaper publishers.
Permission to file an additional legal challenge against the Home Office was denied earlier this year. This challenge pertained to a Ravec decision that he should not be permitted to pay privately for protective security.
Govt to announce measures, including high skilled worker salary
