The wider impact of an attack on Prince Harry should have been taken into account when downgrading his protective security while in the UK, a court has heard.
The Duke of Sussex is challenging the decision by Ravec, the committee to which the Home Office delegates security decisions on royals and other public figures, to accord him a lesser degree of security after his decision to no longer be a working member of the royal family.
The case is being held largely in private but at its commencement at the high court in central London on Tuesday, Harry’s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, claimed he had been treated unlawfully.
In written arguments, she told the court: “Ravec should have considered the ‘impact’ that a successful attack on C [the claimant, Harry] would have, bearing in mind his status, background, and profile within the royal family – which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life – and his ongoing charity work and service to the public. Ravec should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack on C.”
Harry’s case includes specific challenges in relation to his security arrangements during visits to the UK since the Ravec decision in February 2020.
Referring to a June 2021 visit, when Harry met seriously ill children and young people at a charity’s garden party in Kew Gardens, west London, Fatima said: “At the WellChild event, C’s car was interdicted by paparazzi. After the event, X, part of C’s private security team, reported issues with C’s security provision to [redacted], the MPS liaison officer.”
She claimed that in reaching its decisions on security, Ravec had failed to apply its own written policy, which required it to commission an analysis by its risk management board and allow him to make representations.
“Ravec failed to follow its own clear policy, it failed to treat the claimant in the way it has treated others, it failed to tell the claimant how he was being treated and why,” Fatima told the court.
Sir James Eadie, for the Home Office, said in written arguments that the “bespoke manner” in which Harry’s security arrangements had been dealt with “reflected the very particular combination of circumstances in his case”.
He added: “It is judged to be right in principle that the allocation of finite public resources which results from protective security provided by the state be allocated to individuals who are acting in the interests of the state through their public role.”
Referring to the WellChild event, Eadie said that Ravec required requests for protective security on a case-by-case basis to be made with 28 days’ notice and only 19 days’ notice had been given in that case.
He said Harry’s case rested on him proving the decision to downgrade his security arrangements was “irrational” but Eadie told the court: “Ravec is self-evidently in territory in which there is no [objectively] right or wrong answer.”
In May, Harry lost a related legal challenge to the refusal to allow him to pay for police protection while in the UK.
The case is expected to conclude on Thursday.
