Prince Harry's 'life is at stake' his legal team tells Appeal Court
Prince Harry's legal team has said his "life is at stake," as they made their final arguments in an appeal over the level of security he receives in the UK. ITV News Reporter Sam Holder was in court.
Prince Harry's legal team claimed his "life is at stake" on final day of his appeal against the downgrading of his security provisions in the UK.
Speaking in her closing arguments, Prince Harry's legal counsel, Shaheed Fatima KC, said: “There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security, and whose life is at stake.
“There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
Prince Harry had returned to court for the second day of his appeal over a decision to downgrade his UK security after his lawyers accused the Home Office of "singling him out" for "inferior treatment".
Harry is challenging the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.
Ravec’s decision was based on Harry’s changed status after stepping back as a full-time working royal in 2020. The High Court ruled last year that the move was neither irrational nor unfair.
The Duke of Sussex arrived at court shortly before 10.10am on Wednesday, having attended the first day of the hearing on Tuesday.
On the first day of the hearing, Prince Harry’s legal team argued he was “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment” in the decision to scale back his security, and that Ravec failed to properly assess the risk to his safety, despite receiving death threats from al-Qaeda.
In court submissions for the Duke of Sussex – some of which were redacted for confidentiality – barrister Shaheed Fatima KC said al-Qaeda had called for Harry “to be murdered” after his UK security was downgraded by Ravec.
She said his security team was told the terrorist group had published a document claiming his assassination “would please the Muslim community”.
Ms Fatima also told the court that Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, were involved in a “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023, marked by a “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”.
Fatima KC said: “This appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person.”
She continued: “On January 8, 2020, (the Duke of Sussex) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they considered 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.”
Ravec’s legal team pushed back on Tuesday, defending the 2020 appeal and urging judges to dismiss the challenge and award legal costs.
In written submissions for the Home Office, which oversees Ravec’s decisions, barrister Sir James Eadie KC said Prince Harry’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.
He said: “(The Home Office) has, and continues to, treat (the duke) in a bespoke manner. He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.
“Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.
"(The duke’s appeal) involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture."
Subscribe free to our weekly newsletter for exclusive and original coverage from ITV News. Direct to your inbox every Friday morning.
Mr. Eadie elaborated on the government's reasons for supporting Ravec's decision.
He said: “It’s important to emphasise that the decision was not that personal security, of the kind previously provided, would under no circumstances be provided.
“Rather it was simply that that security would not be provided on the same basis as before because of his (the duke’s) change of status and because he was now going to live abroad for the majority of his time.”
At the end of Wednesday's hearing, judge Sir Geoffrey Vos said the Court of Appeal’s decision would be given in writing at a later date, which was “most unlikely” to be before Easter.
Sir Geoffrey, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, said: “Plainly we will take our time to consider our judgments.”
This is the Talking Royals - our weekly podcast about the royal family, with ITV News Royal Editor Chris Ship and Producer Lizzie Robinson