Harry claims he was ‘unjustifiably treated differently’ when the Home Office withdrew his police protection, Supreme Court hears – as Duke’s lawyers say ‘a successful attack on a Prince of the Empire’ would damage Britain’s reputation

Prince Harry has claimed he was ‘unjustifiably treated differently’ when the Home Office withdrew his police protection, the High Court heard today.

The 39-year-old’s taxpayer-funded protections were removed after he stepped back as a senior royal and moved to California with his wife Meghan in 2020.

This week’s case in London is consider the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, to revoke its automatic right to such protection.

Harry says he does not feel safe taking his family to Britain without police protection, and that private bodyguards cannot match the police’s powers and ability to gather intelligence.

Lawyers for the duke told the High Court he should have been entitled to taxpayer-funded police protection because he remained in the line of succession to the throne and was “a prince of the realm.”

The duke’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, said Harry had been “unfairly treated less favorably than others”.

She said at today’s hearing: ‘Ravec should have considered the ‘impact’ a successful attack would have on the claimant, taking into account his status, background and profile within the Royal Family – into which he was born and which he the future will have. the rest of his life – and his continued charity work and service to the public.

Ms Fatima said Harry’s ‘knowledge/understanding was limited’ and he should have been allowed to protest to Ravec before the change in his security.

She said the duke wants his security arrangements declared unlawful, arguing the case-by-case approach creates “excessive uncertainty”.

Ms Fatima said: ‘The purpose of security is to reduce the risk of a successful attack.

‘The risk arose in the claimant because of a factor over which he has no control and which will affect him for the rest of his life, namely his place in the royal family.’

The lawyer added: ‘The ‘case-by-case’ security provision results in undue uncertainty and/or hardship for the claimant/its security team.’

Ms Fatima had earlier opened today’s hearing by saying: ‘This case is about a person’s right to safety and security; there cannot be a right of greater importance to any of us.”

She said in written comments that the risk the Duke faces “arises from his birth and continued status as the son of HM the King.”

She continued: ‘The claimant’s consistent position has been and remains that he should be granted state security in light of the threats/risks he faces.’

The lawyer later said the duke is “clearly” part of the group to be considered by Ravec.

Ms Fatima said: ‘The consequence of the February 20 decision is that Ravec only has to think about protective security for the Duke of Sussex when he visits Britain.

‘That does not mean that he is no longer one of the clients that Ravec must take into account; he clearly is.’

But rejecting her arguments, Sir James Eadie KC of the Home Office said: ‘There is no recognized common law right to publicly funded protection.’

He said Harry was offered tailored treatment as his security needs were assessed each time he notified the Home Office that he planned to visit Britain.

He said in written submissions: ‘In considering whether protective security should be provided to such an individual… Ravec takes into account the risk of a successful attack on that individual.

In summary, Ravec considers the threat faced by an individual, which is assessed by the capability and intent of hostile actors, the vulnerability of that individual to such an attack, and the impact that such an attack would have on the interests of the state.’

He continued: ‘As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the Royal Family and would live abroad most of the time, his position had materially changed.

‘Under those circumstances, protective security would not be provided on the same basis as before. However, in special and specific circumstances, he would be provided with protective security while in Britain.”

Sir James continued: “Ravec has treated the claimant accordingly.

‘He is no longer part of the group of individuals whose security position continues to be regularly assessed by Ravec. But he will be brought back into the cohort under the right circumstances.’

The lawyer said Ravec’s job was to balance the risk of a public figure being attacked with the “finite” nature of police funding.

And he said it was “frankly rational” and lawful for Ravec to consider the Duke of Sussex stepping back because a working royal family was a factor.

‘The fact that the Duke of Sussex cannot cease being a member of the Royal Family is banal, but does not provide further information about the balance that Ravec must strike. The decisions were made in that knowledge.’

The lawyer added: ‘The decision – and its practical implementation for the claimant’s subsequent visits – recognized that he nevertheless occupies a special and unusual position so that it may be appropriate to provide him with protective security in certain circumstances.’

The High Court heard that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was raised as part of the decision on the safety of the Duke of Sussex.

Sir James said: ‘Ravec was aware of the wider ‘impact’ following the tragic death of the claimant’s mother and this was also an issue referred to by the Royal Household.’

The lawyer added that there would be “likely to be significant public unrest if there were a successful attack on the claimant.”

But he continued: ‘The decision and subsequent application constituted a lawful consideration of relevant factors in weighing risk, impact and threat.’

The High Court was told that Ravec requires protective security requests on a case-by-case basis, with 28 days’ notice.

The case continues.