Prince Harry says Britain ‘is my home’ and he was ‘forced’ to ‘step back’ from royal duties and leave the country for the US, the Supreme Court hears in a legal battle with the Ministry of the Interior about his safety

Prince Harry has said Britain ‘is my home’ and that he was ‘forced’ to ‘step back’ from his royal duties and leave the country for the US.

The Duke of Sussex said his children cannot “feel at home” in Britain if it is “not possible to keep them safe”, the High Court heard.

In a written witness statement prepared for his legal challenge against the Home Office over a change to his security arrangements during his visit, Harry said he and his wife had no choice but to leave the country in 2020.

At a hearing in London today, the duke’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, said Harry did not accept that it was a “choice” for him to no longer be a “full-time working member of the Royal Family”.

The lawyer read out an extract from the Duke’s statement in which he said: ‘It was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to relinquish this role and leave the country in 2020.

‘The UK is my home. Britain is central to my children’s heritage and I want them to feel as at home there as they do where they currently live in the US. That cannot happen if it is not possible to keep them safe when they are on British soil.

“I cannot endanger my wife in that way and given my life experiences, I am reluctant to unnecessarily endanger myself.”

Harry must now await a judge’s ruling on his legal action against the Home Office, after a two-and-a-half day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice concluded on Thursday.

The Duke’s lawyers are challenging the February 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to change the extent of his government-funded security, arguing this was ‘unlawful and unfair’ .

The majority of the proceedings took place behind closed doors, without the public or press present, due to confidential evidence about the security measures involved in the case.

Ms Fatima previously told the court that Harry was ‘singled out’ and treated ‘less favourably’ in a decision to change the level of his personal security.

She said Ravec failed to conduct a risk assessment and fully consider the impact of a “successful attack” on him.

The lawyer said a ‘critical’ part of Ravec’s approach was an analysis carried out by the Risk Management Board (RMB), but it had chosen not to do this in Harry’s case.

She said it was the first time the body had decided to “deviate” from policy, using a “much inferior” procedure in relation to “critical safeguards”.

“No good reason has been given for excluding the claimant (the Duke) in this way,” she said, later adding that if Ravec had considered the Duke’s case “properly” the outcome would likely be “different ‘ would have been.

But the government says Harry’s claim should be rejected, arguing that Ravec – which falls under the remit of the Home Office – was entitled to conclude that the duke’s protection should be ‘bespoke’ and ‘ had to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written arguments that the decision “not to undertake an RMB analysis, but to undertake a more bespoke, targeted assessment, does not amount to a” less favorable treatment’ by (Harry).

He said Ravec had decided that “the tailored process would be more effective, allowing Ravec to make a more specific and informed assessment of the threat and risk assessment at each visit.”

Sir James said it was “simply incorrect” to suggest there was no evidence the issue of impact had been considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales – Harry’s mother – was raised as part of the decision.

He added: ‘Ravec placed greater importance on the reduction in impact on state functions as a result of the change, over and above the likely significant public unrest if a successful attack on (Harry) were to occur.’

Mr Justice Lane will give his judgment on the case at a later date.

The security case is one of five High Court claims involving the duke, including extensive lawsuits against newspaper publishers.

Harry, who did not attend the hearing, has been living in North America with wife Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet after the couple announced they would step back as senior royals in January 2020.

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 effect 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 case continues.