On Tuesday, the Duke of Sussex appeared in a London court to contest the British government’s decision to reduce his taxpayer-funded security level while he is in the country.
The Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) ruled that Harry and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will no longer get the “same degree” of protection while in the country after they announced in 2020 that they were leaving their positions as working members of the royal family.
Harry is still fifth in line to the British throne and a member of the royal family, even if he no longer goes by the HRH designation.
Harry, the younger son of King Charles, arrived at London’s Court of Appeal for a two-day hearing to hear the latest developments in his battle with the Home Office, the ministry in charge of the committee, during a rare trip to the UK since relocating to California.
The hearing on Tuesday challenges a prior UK High Court decision that upheld RAVEC’s conclusion as legal. When the duke arrived at court, he sat down a few seats behind his lawyer and listened to the arguments, periodically sipping water from a bottle in front of him. A written decision is anticipated later, and he is not anticipated to testify during the two-day hearing.
During Tuesday’s session, the duke’s attorneys revealed that Harry had been “singled out for different unjustified and inferior treatment” by the committee, according to the duke’s attorneys at Tuesday’s meeting.
Shaheed Fatima KC contended that RAVEC’s decision to modify his degree of security provisions on a case-by-case basis was not in accordance with its own policy.
She argued that a risk management board assessment, or RMB, was not carried out for the duke before RAVEC made its February 2020 decision and that “it did not apply its own terms of reference to that decision-making process.” She said decisions should have included expert analysis obtained through the RMB assessments, but instead it opted for “a different and so-called bespoke process.”
In written submissions to the court, Fatima said the duke “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,” according to Britain’s PA Media news agency.
James Eadie KC, barrister for the Home Office, told the appeals court’s three judges on Tuesday afternoon that “it was important to emphasize that the decision was not that personal security of the kind previously provided would under no circumstances be provided.”