During a recent session at the Court of Appeal, it was emphasized that Prince Harry’s safety and security are “at stake” as he continues to contest the dismissal of his claim against the Home Office regarding his protection in the UK.
The Prince is appealing the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC)’s decision to impose a differing level of security for him while in the UK. This case has drawn considerable attention to the complexities surrounding royal protection.
Arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London shortly before 10:10 a.m., Prince Harry took his place behind his legal team during the proceedings, underscoring the personal nature of this legal battle.
As the two-day appeal drew to a close, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Prince, stressed the importance of not losing sight of the “human dimension” of this case. She noted, “There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is receiving a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect.”
Ms. Fatima pointed out that the issues at hand can be seen in the “clear terms of the decision letter” discussed privately during the hearing. She elaborated, “We assert that his presence here, and throughout this appeal, serves as a powerful reminder of how deeply this matter resonates with him and his family.”
Earlier in the proceedings, Ms. Fatima argued that RAVEC had presented a “different and so-called bespoke process” for Prince Harry, who now resides in the United States. She expressed that the term “bespoke” does not equate to “better” for the Prince. Instead, she contended, it implies that he has been subjected to unjustified and inferior treatment.
Furthermore, she informed the judges that RAVEC is assessing reasons for Prince Harry’s attendance at events, which she suggested, “is plainly irrelevant to the question of security.” Importantly, the judges were made aware that Prince Harry does not demand an automatic entitlement to the protection afforded to him as a working royal.
Ms. Fatima clarified, “The appellant’s case is that he should be reviewed under the same terms of reference and subjected to the same evaluation process as any other individual considered for protective security by RAVEC, unless there is a compelling reason to decide otherwise.”
In defense, the Home Office previously indicated that the appeal encapsulates a failure to grasp the broader scope of the case. James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, stated that RAVEC is faced with a “unique set of circumstances.” He argued, “There is no proper basis for challenging the decision that the bespoke assessment was appropriate… What was essential was the substantive question of how they were going to manage this unique situation.”
Mr. Eadie noted that RAVEC does not operate “by way of comparison” between individuals it oversees, as it is rare for two cases to truly mirror one another. He further commented, “It must be acknowledged that comparing cases is extremely challenging, if not ultimately unproductive, except through applicable broad guiding principles.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Geoffrey Vos indicated that the Court of Appeal would deliver its decision in writing at a later date, adding that the judgment is “most unlikely” to be available before Easter. “Clearly, we will take our time to consider our judgments,” he affirmed while presiding alongside Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International–Monitoring.
