The Duke of Sussex was “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment” in a decision to downgrade the level of security he receives in the UK, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Prince Harry is making his latest legal challenge after the High Court upheld the decision that he should not be provided with the same level of police protection given to working members of the Royal Family.
His barrister Shaheed Fatima KC told the court Prince Harry had been subject to a “different and so-called bespoke process” in that original decision.
Prince Harry’s security in the UK is currently decided on a case-by-case basis, the same way as the country’s other high-profile visitors.
The prince sat with a notepad and pen in the back row of the court, next to his solicitor and behind his barristers.
He is not expected to give evidence in the hearing, which is scheduled to last two days.
The prince’s case is challenging the way the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, took the decision on the prince’s security arrangements after he stepped down from being a working royal in 2020.
He has previously said that the safety of his family, with whom he moved to California in 2020, was at the heart of the case.
“The UK is central to the heritage of my children,” he told the High Court in December 2023, adding that he wanted them to feel at home here.
“That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe.”
Because the Home Office has legal responsibility for Ravec’s decisions, it is opposing the appeal on its behalf.
Ms Fatima told the court on Tuesday it was wrong for Ravec not to follow its standard procedures, because it did not have the expert analysis of the risks facing the prince.
She said the prince’s case was not that he should “automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given”.
His legal submissions argue that he should have been informed about how the decisions about his security were being made.
Prince Harry claims he did not get a chance to make his own case or see risk assessments that might have been carried out.
He also references security incidents that have happened since his security was downgraded.
These include al-Qaeda calling for the prince to be murdered in 2020, and a “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in 2023.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said in written submissions that the prince’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 judgement, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.
Mr Eadie said Ravec had treated the claimant “in a bespoke manner”, adding: “He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.”
In 2023, Prince Harry also lost a legal challenge in his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection.
While most of the proceedings are set to be held in open court, confidential information about security arrangements and threat levels will be heard in private.
A written decision will be issued at a later date.