The Court of Appeal has been informed that Prince Harry’s safety, security, and life are “at stake” as his appeal regarding UK protection comes to a close.
Prince Harry is contesting the rejection of his High Court claim against the Home Office, which pertained to the decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) regarding the level of protection he should receive when in the UK.
He arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London just before 10:10 AM and took a seat behind his legal team during the hearing.
At the conclusion of the two-day appeal, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Prince, emphasized that the “human dimension” of the case should not be overlooked.
“Behind me sits a person who has been told he will receive a specially tailored process, yet he knows and has experienced a process that is clearly inferior in every way.”
Ms. Fatima pointed out that this was evident in the “clear terms of the decision letter” discussed in a private session during the hearing.
She added, “His presence here, throughout this appeal, serves as a powerful reminder of how much this appeal means to him and his family.”
Earlier in the appeal, Ms. Fatima indicated that RAVEC proposed a “different and purportedly bespoke process” for Prince Harry, who resides in the United States.
She further noted, “The appellant does not agree that ‘bespoke’ equates to ‘better.’ In fact, he argues that it signifies he has been singled out for different, unwarranted, and inferior treatment.”
The barrister informed the judges that the bespoke process requires RAVEC to evaluate why Prince Harry would attend an event, “even though that is clearly irrelevant to the issue of security.”
The judges were informed that Prince Harry does not claim automatic entitlement to the same level of protection he received as a working royal.
Ms. Fatima clarified, “The appellant’s position is that he should be assessed under the same terms and conditions as any other individual being evaluated for protective security by RAVEC unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.”
The Home Office is contesting the appeal, previously asserting that the challenge “reflects a persistent failure to see the bigger picture, putting forth arguments that are only supported by examining fragments of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context, while disregarding the entirety of the situation.”
James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, stated that RAVEC was dealing with a “unique set of circumstances.”
He told the court: “There is no valid basis for disputing the appropriateness of the bespoke assessment… The key issue was the substance of their approach to this singular set of circumstances.”
The barrister later remarked that the committee does not conduct “comparative assessments” between individuals under its purview.
Mr. Eadie explained, “This is for the obvious reason that it is highly unlikely that two cases will ever be identical when evaluated against the broad guiding principles that apply.”
He added, “It must be recognized that it is extremely challenging, and perhaps not very beneficial, to attempt to compare cases, aside from the broad guiding principles that pertain across a spectrum of similar cases.”
At the end of the hearing, Judge Geoffrey Vos stated that the Court of Appeal’s decision would be communicated in writing at a later date, which is “most unlikely” to occur before Easter.
Judge Vos, accompanied by Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, remarked, “It is clear that we will take our time to consider our judgments.”
