Harry’s lawyers say Duke was entitled to full security ‘in case of attack’

Lawyers for Prince Harry have argued that a failure to carry out a risk analysis led to the Duke of Sussex’s security arrangements being weakened.

The duke has brought legal action against the Home Office after arguing he received sub-standard protection when visiting the UK in February 2020. His counsel has said that authorities failed to realise the potential impact of a ‘successful attack’ on him.

High Court proceedings opened on Tuesday for what is likely to be a two-and-a-half day examination into the decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec). 

The committe made its decision when the duke was still a full-time working member of the royal family and still, arguably, should have been a priority for them. The duke’s counsel have argued that he was not treated ‘consistently and equally’ with others. 

However, the government is opposing the duke’s case and has said his role had changed by this point. The home office has said he was treated in a ‘bespoke manner’ with his security considered by Ravec in ‘appropriate circumstances’. 

A large part of the hearing in London will be held in private due to the confidentiality of the evidence over security measures, but the initial part of proceedings on Tuesday was public. 

Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the duke, told the court: ‘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.’

She said a ‘crucial’ part of the committee’s approach was an analysis carried out by the Risk Management Board, but added: ‘In this case [the committee] chose not to follow its own written policy. [They] chose not to do a risk analysis.’

The barrister said this is the first time she has seen the committee deviate from the “critical safeguards” built into its policies. Shortly after the incident, the duke relocated to the US. 

Ravec operates with delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of security for the royal family and others. The Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household are privy to arrangements. 

Ms Fatima had written: ‘Ravec should have considered the ‘impact’ that a successful attack on the claimant would have, 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.

‘Ravec should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant.’

Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said in a written argument that the duke had been treated in a lawful and ‘bespoke manner’. 

He said: ‘In considering whether to provide protective security to any such individual… Ravec considered the risk of a successful attack on that individual.

‘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.

‘In those circumstances, protective security is not provided on the same basis as before.’

The hearing is due to conclude on Thursday with a ruling expected at a later date.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.