Prince Harry’s lawyers claim he was ‘singled out for inferior treatment’ over security arrangements

Prince Harry was in court to appeal a decision to downgrade his taxpayer funded security arrangements.

Britain's Prince Harry, waves as he leaves the High Court, in central London. Picture: AFP

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The depth of Prince Harry’s pique about the ramifications of leaving the royal family was made apparent in the Court of Appeal in central London on Tuesday with the fifth in line to the throne claiming he has been “singled out” for “unjustified, inferior treatment”.

He also claimed that he faced greater threats to his life than the risks faced by his mother Diana, the Princess of Wales, who died in a Paris car crash, with his lawyer explaining this was because of “additional layers of racism and extremism’’.

Prince Harry maintains the couple felt forced to step back from royal duties in 2020. Picture: AFP

Harry has visited the United Kingdom for the first time this year – the 15th visit since leaving the Royal Family in early 2020 – to appear in person and demand he and his family should have taxpayer funded security protection when they are visiting the country.

Such claims are widely detested across Britain, where the popularity of the Prince is at an all time low, with a common view being that Harry should pay for his own bodyguards for himself, wife Meghan and two children Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie, as they are no longer working royals.

Al-Qaeda has called for the assassination of Harry saying his death “would please the Muslim community”, his lawyer revealed. Other death threats were received after the publication of his autobiography “Spare” where he wrote he killed 23 Taliban fighters and likened the kills to chess pieces.

Harry arrived for the court hearing, which has already cost the British taxpayers more than A$1.2m, as his father, King Charles and Queen Camilla left on a four day state visit to Italy. The father and son are not believed to have seen each other, and it has become apparent that Harry only found out that the King had complications from his cancer treatment late last month when he received media alerts.

King Charles has been careful not to get involved in the security stoush even though Harry believes he could have intervened and insisted on greater protection.

The Royal Courts of Justice has heard how Harry and Meghan felt forced to step back from royal duties in 2020.

Harry’s King’s Counsel, Shaheed Fatima said the couple felt “they were not being protected by the institution.”

But the legal team for the UK’s Home Office said Harry “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”, arguing that the decision by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) provided “bespoke” security for him on a case-by-case basis.

Harry had lost the initial court case last February when the judge ruled RAVEC had not been irrational or procedurally unfair.

But Ms Fatima argued before the three appeal judges that Ravec had failed to adhere to its own policy by opting not to undertake a risk analysis, and that the court had made a wrong conclusion in deciding that any risk assessment was optional or discretionary.

“Instead, RAVEC came up with a different, and so-called bespoke process, which as that label makes clear, is not applied to anyone else,” she said.

“The appellant [Prince Harry] does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,’’ she said.

Harry will stay in London for another day in court, some of which will be heard in camera for security reasons, while Meghan is back in California releasing a podcast series, “Confessions of A Female Founder’’.

Harry had been so upset when his security had been reconfigured after leaving the Royal Family – which included him providing a 30 day notice prior of travel plans so that the security can be assessed – that he demanded to know the names of the senior decision makers inside RAVEC.