Prince Harry’s ‘life at stake’ after duke’s sad family plea in security court case

The case continues..

Prince Harry continues his security court case, appealing a ruling about his protection whilst in Britain.

During the hearings, new claims state that Prince Harry’s lack of protection could put him at risk.
Prince Harry is fighting back (Credit: Zak Hussein / SplashNews.com)

Why did Prince Harry lose his security?

Prince Harry is currently at a hearing surrounding the British government’s choice to strip him of security protection. It came after he gave up his role as a working royal in 2020.

Moving away from royal duties meant Harry would no longer have blanket personal protection, provided by British police.

The decision ruled that security would be surveyed on a bespoke, case-by-case basis. A move that Prince Harry is not satisfied with.

During his court appearance on April 8, Harry’s lawyer claimed that he and Meghan Markle felt as though they were “forced” to walk away from royal life due to their lack of security.
The Duke of Sussex wishes to have full protection from British Police (Credit: Zak Hussein / SplashNews.com)

Prince Harry’s High Court appeal

In a written submission read out in court, a barrister for Harry said: “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.”

They then added that it was ruled that “there is no basis for publicly funded security support for the duke and duchess within Great Britain”.

There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake.

Now, in an appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice, Harry’s attorney, Shaheed Fatima explained that a lack of protection of Harry threatens his life.

“One mustn’t forget the human dimension to this case. There is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security and whose life is at stake,” Fatima said.

“There’s a person sitting behind me who’s been told he’s getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior.”
Prince Harry left the royal family as a working member in 2020 (Credit: SplashNews.com)

Who pays for Prince Harry’s security?

The British taxpayer funds the security that protects the royal family. Since moving overseas, Prince Harry and Meghan have relied upon a privately funded security team.

Harry has taken legal action over the decision made by Ravec (Royal and VIP Executive Committee) over the level of protection he should receive when in the UK.

The High Court previously heard that his “status” had changed – a result of no longer being a “full-time working member of the royal family”.

Prince Harry has since argued that his children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, cannot “feel at home” or “safe” in the UK unless police protection is put in place.

Prince Harry news

British Barrister Sir James Eadie KC said it was right to approach Harry’s personal security in a flexible manner.

The BBC reports that Harry has asked three judges to overturn a decision to downgrade the police protection he has at public expense when he visits the UK.

Prince Harry, beside his solicitor, reportedly made occasional notes as he listened to Sir James set out the government’s position, in court today (April 10).
Harry’s case is currently at the Court of Appeal (Credit: Dutch Press Photo/Cover Images)

Prince Harry’s court case latest

Sir James told the court the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, which decides security levels, was governed by “royal prerogative”.

Therefore, not by the requirements of any law.

Its chair, Sir Richard Mottram, was “front line responsible” if Ravec got it wrong, he said.

Sir James called the decision a “category of its own,” due to Harry’s unique circumstances.

He went on to explain the core objective of the committee’s members and advisers.

Eadie said their objective was “to make nuanced judgments about security protection”.