Prince Harry’s lawyers claim he has been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” as he made a surprise court appearance to challenge the level of security he gets in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex, 40, waved at reporters as he entered the Royal Courts of Justice in central London for his appeal on Tuesday morning.
He lost a legal challenge last year against the government’s decision to remove his right to automatic police protection when he is in Britain.
Wearing a dark suit, white shirt and pale blue patterned tie, Harry sat on the back row behind his lawyers in a courtroom packed with journalists and members of the public.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
During the hearing, he sat writing in a small notepad and on Post-it notes, which he passed to his legal team.
He also typed on his mobile phone, had whispered conversations with those sat next to him and was seen eating a Pret A Manger lunch.
Courts and the Colosseum: What is the dynamic between Harry and the King now?
Prince Harry court case latest: Judge tells Duke of Sussex’s lawyer she’s ‘putting money on’ one factor in UK security appeal
Prince Harry’s security case back in court – all you need to know
The two-day appeal hinges on a decision taken by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) in February 2020 after Harry and Meghan stopped working as senior royals and went to Canada.
Harry’s barrister Shaheed Fatima KC said Ravec did not get an assessment from an expert specialist body called the risk management board (RMB) and instead followed a “bespoke” process.
“(He) does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” she said.
Couple ‘felt forced to step back’
In written submissions to the court, Harry’s lawyers said he and his wife “felt forced to step back” from their roles as senior working royals because they thought “they were not being protected by the institution”.
“But they wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the Royal Family,” they said.
Read more royal news:
Meghan reveals ‘rare’ medical condition
King and Queen in Italy for Rome tour
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
Following Ravec’s decision, al Qaeda called for Harry to “be murdered” in a document stating his “assassination would please the Muslim community,” the court papers said.
‘Dangerous car pursuit’
They also highlight an incident in May 2023 when Harry and Meghan “were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City”.
His lawyers said “no formal charges were brought but the investigation found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and ‘persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of the paparazzi'”.
Follow our channel and never miss an update.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said experts, including the chair of Ravec and the chair of the RMB, had decided Harry’s “unique circumstances” required a “bespoke approach” to the provision of his security.
The prince would be “better served” by this approach and the decision did not mean “personal security of the kind previously provided would under no circumstances be provided”, he said.
In written arguments, the government’s lawyers said while they recognise that Harry “disagrees vehemently” with the decision over his security arrangements, his views are “legally irrelevant”.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Ravec “implemented the bespoke process” for Harry and so he is “already treated exceptionally”, they argued.
Written submissions on behalf of both Prince Harry and the government have been redacted and the second day of the hearing on Wednesday will largely be held behind closed doors.
The three judges hearing the case previously ruled evidence relating to security arrangements and threat levels, and assessments for Harry and other public figures, was “highly confidential” and should and will be heard in private.
