'INFERIOR TREATMENT'
Prince Harry & Meghan Markle claim they ‘stepped back’ from Royal Family as they were ‘not protected by institution’
Duke lost round-the-clock protection after Megxit
PRINCE Harry and Meghan Markle "stepped back" from the Royal Family as they were "not protected by the institution", a court heard.
The Duke of Sussex brought a case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
7
7
7
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 because it refused to spend taxpayers' money on bodyguards after he left the Royal Family.
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 now returned to the Court of Appeal in London for a two-day hearing against the ruling.
Read more news
His lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC claimed Harry has been "singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment".
She also opened up about Megxit - claiming in written decisions that Harry and Meghan felt "forced" to leave.
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".
Most read in Royals
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."
How Prince Harry found out about King’s hospitalisation proves the royal rift is deeper than ever
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".
The papers added: "No formal charges were brought but the investigation found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of the paparazzi”.
Ms Fatima argued Ravec's failure to do an RMB (risk management board assessment) for Harry may have led to a mistake.
She said the body did not have the expert analysis it needed to consider whether or not Harry should be treated similarly to those in the "other VIP" category.
The lawyer argued Harry has still not been given an RMB analysis "despite recent security incidents".
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's arrival at court came on the day Meghan Markle launched her first podcast episode in which she opens up about her scary health battles.
He refused to answer when asked "did you speak to your dad?" after King Charles flew to Italy with Camilla for a state visit.
It is understood Harry didn't meet with the monarch as it was "not possible" for a reunion.
MEGXIT ROW
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 but officials refused - with insiders insisting cops are not "guns for hire".
Ravec claimed that allowing Harry to pay for his own protective security would be contrary to the public interest and undermine public confidence in the Met Police.
They also said the decision could not be reconciled with rules that only expressly permit charging for certain police services.
These include using privately-funded police at one-off events such as football matches, marathons and celebrity weddings.
What level of security protection are working royals entitled to?
A HANDFUL of working members of the Royal Family have 24/7 protection - but others are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Senior officers are assigned to specific members of the household and are supported by others, one expert told The Sun.
He claimed there will always be a minimum of one protection officer with a member of the Royal Family, but the protection team is increased according to threat and risk.
King Charles, Queen Camilla and the Wales' family have round-the-clock protection and the monarch also has a corridor officer based outside his bedroom door, the expert said.
The likes of Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex are given protection when they are taking part in official engagements - but do not have taxpayer-funded security at their homes.
Prince Andrew had his taxpayer-funded security removed following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
His daughters Princess Beatrice and Prince Eugenie are said to not have funded security as they are not full-time working royals - and are employed elsewhere.
Robert Jobson, an award-winning royal author, explained: "According to a 1917 Letters of Patent issued by King George V, the title of HRH Prince or Princess is passed to ‘The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm.
“Both Harry and Meghan know this. Archie, on the other hand, did not qualify to become a prince automatically.
“In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Letters Patent to expand on a previous decree that granted such a title only to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales."
While Home Office lawyers argued he was no longer part of a group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec.
But they said the body was entitled to conclude the duke's protection should be "bespoke" and considered on a "case-by-case" basis.
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.”
His appeal hearing comes amid mounting drama over his charity Sentebale.
The duke last month sensationally quit the trust, which he co-founded in 2006 in memory of his mother, Princess Diana.
Fellow royal patron Prince Seeiso of Lesotho and the rest of the Sentebale board also resigned after falling out with boss Dr Sophie Chandauka.
She has since accused Harry of bullying and harassment with the Charity Commission watchdog investigating her claims.
Read More on The Sun
The hearing is due to conclude on Wednesday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
7
7
7
7
Topics
