Prince Harry 'treated less favourably' over protection in UK, court told

Proceedings have ended for today

Proceedings have ended in the High Court for today, wrapping up around 1pm.

Catch up below on the first day in court. The next two days will be held behind closed doors.

RECAP Everything that's happened so far on day one of Harry vs Home Office

Here's a recap of proceedings so far on day one of Prince Harry's legal battle with the Home Office:

• After three years since the initial decision to pull Harry's security, he's now fighting with the government to get it back
• The hearing will be mostly held in private due to the nature of the confidential information surrounding security operations that's discussed. Today will be public, followed by two days of private deliberations
• Prince Harry's lawyers warned of the damaing impact a succesful attack on him could have on the public, as they stressed the case was about the "right to safety"
• The Home Office insisted that Harry had been treated in a "bespoke" manner and that their plan to deal with his visits on a case-by-case was the best agreement
• Representatives of the Duke put forward that regardless of whether he had left as a working royal, he was still at risk from being the "son of the King"
• They also claimed Harry had "unjustifiably" been treated "less favourably than others" over security
• Ravec, the body in charge of decisions like these, insisted that there was only "finite public resources" and that Harry occupied a "particular and unusual position"
• Princess Diana, Harry's late mother, was also raised as part of the decision as one key procedural point, Harry's lawyers claim, wasn't followed by Ravec when making the decision to strip him of his security

Prince Harry was said to occupy a 'particular and unusual position' in the royal family (Getty Images)

What is the key procedural point at the heart of Harry's arguments?

Harry's barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, has argued that a "crucial" part of Ravec's approach to judging whether an individual needed security was the Risk Management Board (RMB).

The RMB is a form of risk analysis by which Ravec judge an individual's circumstances and need for security. This analysis however, she told the court today, was absent from when they assessed Prince Harry's own situation.

She said: "In this case Ravec chose not to follow its own written policy. Ravec chose not to do a RMB risk analysis."

Instead she warned that Ravec had used a "far inferior procedure" in relation to the "critical safeguards" built into its policies, claiming it was the "first time that Ravec has ever decided to deviate from this policy in this way".

Kate rules out receiving romantic gift from Prince William on Valentine's Day

Whether or not this was used, and whether it was necessary, seems a key point to arguments over the coming days.

Prince Harry and the UK government are caught in a legal row over his security arrangements when he travels back to the UK (Getty Images)

Harry 'chased by photographers' after giving authorities 19 days notice before UK event

Prince Harry was said to have been chased by photographers after he allegedly didn't give authorities the necessary 28-days notice before a visit to supply him security, the court heard.

In June 30 2021, the Duke of Sussex met seriously ill children and young people at a WellChild garden party and afternoon tea in Kew Gardens, west London. It is understood the duke’s car was chased by photographers as he left.

The High Court was told on Tuesday that Ravec requires requests for protective security on a case-by-case basis, giving 28 days’ notice. Sir James Eadie KC said: "It is justified by the need for careful consideration by Ravec, having regard to the claimant’s proposed itinerary, the assessment of the relevant risks and threats applicable at the time and the wider circumstances."

The barrister added that the details of Harry’s visit to the WellChild event were not provided until June 11 2021, adding "this was materially later than the 28-day period stipulated."

Prince Harry leaving Kew Gardens, when he was allegedly chased by photographers

Death of Princess Diana raised as a part of decision over Harry's security

The tragic death of Princess Diana was raised as a part of the decision made over Prince Harry's security, the court was told this morning.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said: "Ravec was aware of the wider 'impact' following the tragic death of the claimant’s mother, and this was also a matter referenced by the royal household."

He added that there would "likely be significant public upset" if there was a successful attack on Harry. He continued: "The decision, and its subsequent application, constituted a lawful balancing of relevant factors, in the conduct of a consideration of risk, impact and threat."

Princess Diana and Princes Harry and William (AFP/Getty Images)

Prince Harry occupies 'particular and unusual position' thanks to self-exile

Prince Harry occupies a "particular and unusual position" thanks to his self-exile from the royal family, the court heard.

At the heart of this three day High Court showdown lies the row over whether the Duke of Sussex should still get protective security when in the UK.

Ravec argue that it is no longer required, something Harry disputes. Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said it was “plainly rational” and lawful for Ravec to consider that the Duke of Sussex was stepping back as a working member of the royal family - and therefore less in need of security.

The barrister added: "The decision – and its practical implementation for the claimant’s subsequent visits – recognised that he nonetheless occupies a particular and unusual position, such that it may be appropriate to afford him protective security in certain circumstances."

Prince Harry now occupies an 'unusual' position in the royal family thanks to his self-exile, the court heard (AP)

'Finite public resources' to protect VIPs, court hears

The court was told there is only "finite public resources" for state-funded security.

The Home Office, in written submissions, represented by James Eadie KC, said that it was up to Ravec which individuals fell under their domain, and who they then supplied security too.

One issue they faced was limited resources so being unable to simply give out security to anyone. In written submissions, they said: “It was for Ravec to determine which individuals were within the cohort for which it took responsibility. The cohort primarily consists of principals who are at particular risk from threats as a result of their role in public life.

"It is judged to be right in principle that the allocation of finite public resources which results from protective security provided by the state be allocated to individual who are acting in the interests of the state through their public role.”

Sir James continued: “Ravec has treated the claimant (the Duke of Sussex) as a person who falls outside the Ravec cohort, but who nonetheless enters the cohort occasionally when in Great Britain.”

Prince Harry 'unjustifiably, been treated less favourably than others' over security, court hears

Prince Harry was "unjustifiably" treated "less favourably than others" when it came to his security arrangements, a court heard today.

The Duke's representative Shaheed Fatima KC argued that he was not treated the same as others who Ravec, the Home Office body that stripped Harry of his security, made decisions about.

She alleged that Ravec had chosen "not to follow its own written policy" as no Risk Management Board risk analysis was carried out. She added: "This is the first time Ravec has ever decided to deviate from its policy in this way. No good reason has been provided for singling the claimant out in this way".

After leaving royal family, less risk of an attack on Harry, court hears

The High Court heard this morning that by deciding to leave the Royal family, Prince Harry's position "materially changed" meaning he was less at risk of being targeted in an attack.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions: "As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the royal family, and would be living abroad for the majority of the time, his position had materially changed."

He previously explained: "In considering whether to provide protective security to any such individual … Ravec considers the risk of a successful attack on that individual. In summary, Ravec considers the threat that an individual faces, which is assessed by reference to the capability and intent of hostile actors, the vulnerability of that individual to such an attack, and the impact that such an attack would have on the interests of the state.

"In those circumstances [when Harry returns], protective security would not be provided on the same basis as before. However, he would, in particular and specific circumstances, be provided protective security when in Great Britain."

Harry is locked in a court battle with the Home Office (SplashNews.com)

Prince Harry has been treated in a 'bespoke manner', Home Office argue

Prince Harry has, contrary to the royal's claims, been treated in a "bespoke manner" the Home Office told the court this morning.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said that the Duke of Sussex has been treated in a lawful, “bespoke manner” over his security. In written submissions, he said: "Ravec has, accordingly, treated the claimant in a bespoke manner.

"He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec. But he is brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances."

Deciding security on a 'case-by-case' scenario leads to 'uncertainty', court told

The government's arguement, that Prince Harry's security could be decided on a "case-by-case" scenario, leads to excessive uncertainty and hardship, the Duke's barrister warned.

Shaheed Fatima KC, for Harry, said in written submissions: "The purpose of security is to mitigate the risk of a successful attack. The risk has arisen in relation to the claimant because of a factor over which he has no control and which will affect him for the rest of his life, ie, his place in the royal family."

The government has argued that on any return trips to the UK, Harry's security can be decided 'case-by-case' (Getty Images)

Harry was left in the dark without 'relevant information' over security removal, lawyer claims

In continued written submissions, Prince Harry's lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC told the High Court that the Duke of Sussex would have made "further representations directly" to Ravec, the body that deprived him of his security escort, had he been given the "relevant information".

She said: "In 2020 the claimant stood to be deprived of an existing ‘benefit’ of the upmost importance but he was not given any, or any proper, opportunity to make informed representations directly to Ravec before the February 2020 decision."

Ms Fatima continued: "A person in the claimant’s position – who is the subject of a Ravec decision which will directly affect his safety, rights and interests, and involve the removal of the prior provision of State security – is entitled to be informed, at the start of the decision-making process, what the relevant policy is and how it is operated/applied, so that they may make informed submissions to Ravec."

This she claimed didn't happen, and Harry's knowledge of the process was "limited".

Prince Harry was left in the dark over the decision to remove his security, his lawyers claimed (Getty Images)

Risk comes from being 'son of the King'

Shaheed Fatima KC, for Harry, said in written submissions that the risk the duke faces “arises from his birth and ongoing status, as the son of HM The King”.

She continued: “The claimant’s consistent position has been – and remains – that he should be given state security in light of the threats/risks he faces.”

The barrister later said the duke is “plainly” part of the group that Ravec – the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures – has to consider.

Ms Fatima said: “The effect of the February 20 decision is that Ravec is only required to consider protective security for the Duke of Sussex when he visits the UK.

“That does not mean he is no longer one of the principals that Ravec is required to consider: he plainly is.”

'The case is about the right to safety'

At the start of the Duke of Sussex’s High Court challenge over the decision to change the level of his protective security when visiting the UK, his barrister Shaheed Fatima KC said: “This case is about the right to safety and security of a person, there could not be a right of greater importance to any of us.

Today is the first of three days of this weeks legal showdown between Prince Harry and the government (GC Images)

Lawyers warn of 'impact' an attack on Prince Harry could have on UK

In written submissions today, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Duke of Sussex, has warned that Ravec "should have considered the 'impact' that a successful attack on" Prince Harry could have.

She added that this was significant "bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal family – which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life – and his ongoing charity work and service to the public".

If an attack was carried out on Harry, she warned it would have an impact on the UK's reputation.

Proceedings begin in Prince Harry's showdown with the Home Office

As of 10.30am this morning, Prince Harry's legal showdown with the Home Office began.

It will run for three days this week, with today being held in public, and the next two days behind closed doors.

Prince Harry won the right to appeal the government's decision last July (Getty Images)

What did Harry and the Home Office previously argue?

As Prince Harry's lawyers made their, eventually successful, bid to challenge the government's decision, they said that Ravec's security arrangements were invalid due to "procedural unfairness".

This, they argued, was because he wasn't given the chance to make "informed representations beforehand".

Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, told the High Court in London last year: "He didn’t know at that stage that the Royal Household was involved at all … he was told it was an independent decision."

Lawyers for the Home Office said Ravec was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that Harry’s security arrangements will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and said permission for a full challenge should be refused.

Prince Harry's relationship with the rest of the royal family has been strained since he left in 2020 (In Pictures via Getty Images)

What did judge say as decision made to hold hearing mostly behind closed doors?

Mr Justice Lane is the judge who will hear Prince Harry's appeal, after he won the right to challenge the government's decision.

The Telegraph reported that the judge read both parties' skeleton arguments and said that it was clear "the material that needs to be protected in the interests of justice is very tightly entangled with less sensitive details required for the court to properly determine the claim."

He added: "This means that the bulk of the hearing must be in private."

Why is the case mostly being held in private?

Whilst today will see proceedings in Prince Harry's legal showdown with the Home Office take place in public, the next two days will subsequently be held behind closed doors.

This is because a lot of the information put forward surrounds security arrangements that were put in place for Prince Harry and other public figures.

This material usually is confidential, so it is not compromised, hence the judge's decision.

Proceedings begin today in Harry's three-day showdown with the Home Office (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Prince Harry's High Court showdown to be held mostly in PRIVATE

Prince Harry's High Court showdown this week is to be held mostly behind closed doors.

Amid concerns over privacy, most of what will take place over the next three days won't be publicly known. This is down to a privacy order being issued because huge swathes of the evidence, which may contain personal information about the prince, cannot enter the public domain.

This morning proceedings are open, beginning from 10.30am, so the public will know what takes place, but the next two days they will take place behind closed doors.

The Telegraph reported that the judge read both parties’ skeleton arguments, and said it was clear that "the bulk of the hearing must be in private".

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped back as working royals back in 2020

Timeline of how Prince Harry got to the High Court

• January 2020: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce they are stepping back from being "working members" of the Royal Family as of April that year
• February 28, 2020: Ravec decide that because of Harry's changing role "the provision of protective security would no longer be appropriate on the same basis as before". This security would stop from March 31 "save particular and specific circumstances".
• September 2021: A judicial review is held about a visit from Harry to the UK in June 2020, and July the following year.
• December 2021: the Home Secretary decides that Ravec should decide whether Harry is allowed to pay for his own security, Ravec however, refuses.
• July 22, 2022: A judgement is handed down following a hearing two weeks earlier in which Harry is granted permission to apply for a judicial review on some grounds, but also refused on others.
• December 5, 2023: Harry begins his three day High Court showdown this week.

Prince Harry, escorted by security, leaves the High Court in London earlier this year (AP)

Who made the decision to strip Prince Harry of his security?

The decision, taken in February 2020, to remove Prince Harry's security was taken by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) - now known as the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures.

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.

This is a body that "exercises executive authority" for national policy for the "protection of royalty and VIPs". It sits within the Home Office.

In short, they decide who needs security of the royal family and amongst important and well-known individuals visiting or residing in the UK, and how much security they need.

After Prince Harry decided to leave the royal family, they took the decision to remove his security. Court documents read: "On 28 February 2020 [2020], RAVEC decided that, because of the claimant’s changed role, theprovision of protective security would no longer be appropriate on the same basis as before".

Prince Harry is challenging the UK government over the decision to strip him of his security detail (AP)

Harry previously told it was 'not appropriate' for him to 'buy' private security

Prince Harry was previously told during his battle against the Home Office, that it was considered "not appropriate" for wealthy people like himself to "buy" protective security.

This came as the royal offered to fund his own security when coming to the UK with his family, after having his police protection pulled.

At a past court appearance, this was because Ravec (Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures) had already decided that "the public interest does not warrant" someone receiving such security on a publicly funded basis.

The duke’s legal team argued Ravec’s view, that allowing payment for protective security would be contrary to the public interest and undermine public confidence in the Metropolitan Police, could not be reconciled with rules which expressly permit charging for certain police services.

Prince Harry was refused permission to bring a further legal challenge over this decision.

Prince Harry leaving the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this year (AP)

What did the judge previously say?

Mr Justice Swift made the decision last July that the Prince could take his appeal to the High Court.

In a judgement the High Court judge said the case could proceed, granting permission for part of Harry's claim to have a judicial review. Mr Justice Swift said it was "arguable" whether the duke "should have had the opportunity to make representations direct to Ravec", including the opportunity to comment.

But he denied permission for other parts of Harry's claim, including his argument that he should have been told who the members of Ravec were.

The judge said: "The application for permission to apply for judicial review is allowed in part and refused in part. In the course of submissions it became apparent that while the claimant may have had disagreements with persons who were Ravec committee members, there was no evidence at all to support a claim that any committee member had approached decisions with a closed mind, or that either decision was affected by bias."

The self-exiled Duke is challenging the government's decision to strip him of his security detail after he gave up being a working member of the royal family (AP)

What led the Prince to High Court?

Back in February 2020, one month before the pandemic hit England, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) decided that he no longer would be given the "same degree" of personal security when visiting the UK.

But Harry challenged this and the Duke was given the green light to bring the challenge in July 2022.