The legal appeal from Britain’s Prince Harry regarding his security arrangements during visits to the UK has commenced at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
He is contesting the dismissal of his High Court action against Britain’s Home Office about the decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which stated that he would receive a different level of taxpayer-funded protection while in the country.
Last year, retired High Court judge Peter Lane determined that Ravec’s decision, made in early 2020 after Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped down as senior working royals, was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair.
The Home Office, which holds legal accountability for the committee’s decisions, is opposing the appeal. Its lawyers previously informed the High Court that decisions are made “on a case-by-case” basis.
Ravec has been delegated the responsibility by the Home Office for providing protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with input from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office, and the royal household.
In February 2020, the committee resolved that Prince Harry and his family would receive a different level of taxpayer-funded protection while in the country, following their relocation to the US.
After he initiated legal action the next year, the High Court heard in 2023 that an offer for him to self-finance his security was declined. His lawyers claimed he “does not feel safe” under the new security arrangements during his visits.
Representatives for the Home Office, responsible for Ravec’s decisions, asserted that the committee determined Prince Harry would not be granted protective security “on the same basis as before” because he was no longer a working member of the royal family and spends the majority of his time living abroad, emphasizing that decisions are made “on a case-by-case” basis.
Prince Harry’s claim was rejected in February of last year, and he was initially denied permission to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal.
However, the appeal court granted him the opportunity to challenge the decision in June of last year and ordered earlier this month that certain aspects of the hearing regarding “confidential facts” should occur in private, meaning the press and public are prohibited from attending.
