Prince Harry takes legal action against the Home office on the February 2020 decision that his level of personal protection would be reduced after he stepped down as a working Royal.
The Duke says he wants to visit his children from the US, but insists he and his family “will not be able to return to his home” because it is too dangerous.
When requesting authorization for a full judicial review of the security decree by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalties and Public Figures (RAVEC) – which falls under the purview of the Ministry of the Interior, the Duke claimed that he had been the victim of “procedural dishonesty””.
Shaeed Fatima QC, for Harry, told the court he was “not aware at the time that the Royal House was involved” in the decision-making process, and had been told it was “an independent decision”.
The court heard that there were “significant tensions” at the time between Harry and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, and he says he was not fully aware of the decision-making process or the makeup of RAVEC.
Harry claims he believed his points were “completely and correctly communicated to RAVEC”, but he was denied the opportunity to submit comments directly to the committee.
“He was materially biased…because his offer to pay (for security) was not passed on to RAVEC before the decision was made,” Ms Fatima said in written comments.
“He does not know what else – as communicated by him to the Royal House – has not been fully/in time passed on to RAVEC.
“He was denied the opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of the RAVEC process(and) the involvement of certain individuals in the RAVEC process before the decision was made.
“It is arguable that, had there been a fair trial, RAVEC would or could have come to a different decision.”
Interior ministry lawyers say RAVEC had a right to reach the decision it made that the Duke’s security arrangements will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and argue that authorization for a full judicial review should be sought. refused.
Home Office representative Sir James Eadie QC said in written arguments that any tensions between Harry and Royal Household officials are “irrelevant” to his change in status.
He says Harry believes he may have objected to the involvement of Royal House officials in the RAVEC decision – because of the “tensions” – but stressed the argument is “irrelevant”.
“The plaintiff’s inability to explain even now how a process of representation could or would have helped is striking,” said Sir James.
Due to the sensitive nature of the security data, parts of the judicial process are kept private. Justice Swift has said he hopes to rule on a full judicial review before the end of July.