A look-back at the two-day appeal hearingpublished at 13:19 British Summer Time 2 May
Image source, EPAPrince Harry’s case is challenging the way the Royal and VIP
Executive Committee (Ravec) took the decision on his security arrangements after
he stepped down from being a working royal in 2020.
During last month’s Court of Appeal hearing, Harry’s
barrister argued that Harry had been subject
to a “different and so-called bespoke process”.
Shaheed Fatima KC told the court that he was “singled
out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
Last year, the High Court ruled that there had been no
unlawfulness in Ravec’s original decision.
Because the Home Office has legal responsibility for Ravec’s
decisions, it is opposing the appeal on its behalf.
Its barrister, James Eadie KC, argued that Harry’s decision
to step back from his life as a working royal resulted in a
“unique set of circumstances”, and it was right to take a
flexible approach to his level of security.
While Ravec had “terms of reference” for deciding
security measures, there was “nothing to suggest they were designed to
operate rigidly and not flexibly”, he said.