Prince Harry begs ‘my life is at stake’ as he appeals decision to axe publicly-funded security while in UK
Prince Harry has attended a London court to appeal a decision that he says has placed his and his family’s “life at stake”.
Royals
Don't miss out on the headlines from Royals. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Prince Harry today begged “my life is stake” as he appealed against the withdrawal of his publicly-funded security while in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex brought the case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
Harry claimed he was “singled out” after his round-the-clock royal protection was stripped in the wake of Megxit.
He also attempted to sue the Home Office because it refused to spend taxpayers’ money on bodyguards after he left the Royal Family.
MORE: Prince Harry’s $200m UK secret revealed
But in February last year, High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the duke’s case and ruled Ravec’s approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
Harry has returned to the Court of Appeal in London for a day two of his appeal against the ruling.
His lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC told the court in a closing statement: “There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake.
MORE: Neighbours unleash on ‘villain’ Meghan
“There is a person sitting behind me who’s being told that he is getting a special and bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
She added: “We say that his presence here and through this appeal is a potent illustration, were one needed, about how much this appeal means to him and family.”
Ms Fatima yesterday claimed Harry has been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
She also touched on Megxit – claiming in written documents that Harry and Meghan Markle felt “forced” to leave to the Royal Family.
The lawyer added: “On 8 January 2020, (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.”
Ms Fatima told the court Ravec came up with a “bespoke” process not applied to anyone else, but that Harry doesn’t accept bespoke means “better”.
She continued: “The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family.
“The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.”
In court documents, his team highlighted “recent security incidents” surrounding the Duke.
This included Al-Qaeda calling for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec’s decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.
Another refers to a May 2023 incident after “[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City”.
In their own written arguments, the government say Harry’s “bare disagreement” with the decision to remove his security “does not amount to a ground of appeal”.
They claimed that while Harry “disagrees vehemently” with his security arrangements, his views are “largely irrelevant”.
The Home Office also claim they did not act “irrationally” and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry’s claim.
Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
The royal moaned he was unable to return with Meghan and his children Archie and Lilibet, “because it is too dangerous”.
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
Harry’s lawyers previously argued he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision.
They added his treatment was “unlawful and unfair” and warned of “the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack” against the duke.
Harry also wanted to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused – with insiders insisting cops are not “guns for hire”.
In his ruling in February, Sir Peter Lane said there had not been any “unlawfulness” in the call to pull Harry’s security.
He said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.
The judge added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”
Harry’s day in court yesterday came as Meghan launched her first podcast episode in which she opens up about her scary health battles.
While in the UK, he did not go to see his dad King Charles, who flew out to Italy with Camilla for a state visit.
It is not known if Harry requested a meeting, but it is believed the pair have now not seen each other in person for 14 months.
The hearing is due to conclude today with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
This article originally appeared in The Sun and was reproduced with permission
Originally published as Prince Harry begs ‘my life is at stake’ as he appeals decision to axe publicly-funded security while in UK
Harry’s extraordinary claim: ‘Worst fears’
“People would be shocked”: The prince has dropped a bombshell after an unexpected appearance in a London court this week.
Meghan’s NYC act roasted: ‘Out of control’
“Out of control”: Meghan’s low-key night out to catch a Broadway show reportedly featured an “abnormal” security detail.