Prince Harry’s decision to downgrade his security in the UK has sparked a high-stakes court battle, with the Appeal Court set to determine whether the treatment was unjustified and inferior.
The Duke of Sussex‘s decision to downgrade his security in the UK has been challenged in court, with the Appeal Court hearing arguments that the treatment was unjustified and inferior.
The High Court had previously upheld the decision, but Prince Harry‘s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, argued that he had been subject to a ‘different and so-called bespoke process‘ that did not follow standard procedures.
According to Mr Fatima, Ravec, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, chose to downgrade Prince Harry‘s security without conducting expert analysis of the risks he faced. The prince claimed that he was not given the chance to make his own case or see risk assessments that might have been carried out.
The case centers around the duke’s decision to step down from being a working royal in 2020, citing concerns about the protection of his family. He stated that the UK is central to the heritage of his children and that they cannot feel at home if it is not possible to keep them safe.
Prince Harry has previously referenced security incidents, including al-Qaeda calling for him to be murdered in 2020 and a ‘dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi‘ in New York in 2023. He argues that these incidents demonstrate the need for his current security arrangements to remain in place.
The Home Office, representing the UK government, argued that the previous judge was right to find that Ravec‘s approach was lawful and that the prince’s appeal involves a ‘continued failure to see the wood for the trees‘. They also emphasized that Prince Harry is no longer considered part of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.
The Appeal Court will continue its deliberations on Wednesday, with a written decision expected at a later date.
