Prince Harry Claims He Was Singled Out For ‘Inferior Treatment’ By Royal Security Service

Baila Eve ZismanApril 9, 2025, 12:41 amHomepage Slider, News >

On Tuesday, Prince Harry’s attorneys declared that he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment” over security.

In February 2020, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) cut back Harry’s security following his and his wife Meghan Markle’s decision to leave the Royal family and move to the U.S.

Following High Court judge Sir Peter Lane’s ruling last year that RAVEC’s decision was lawful, Harry challenged the dismissal.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Harry’s attorney Shaheed Fatima clarified, “The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family…The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by RAVEC unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.”

Fatima declared that RAVEC “did not have the expert analysis it needed” to assess the degree of security Harry requires. “Had the judge properly evaluated the evidence, he would have come to that conclusion,” she said, claiming Harry “has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”

Sir James Eadie KC, the department’s attorney, highlighted in his argument, “It’s important to emphasize that the decision was not that personal security of the kind previously provided would under no circumstances be provided…Rather it was simply that that security would not be provided on the same basis as before because of his [the duke’s] change of status and because he was now going to live abroad for the majority of his time.”

He continued, “As the judge noted, the claimant is entitled to hold and express those views. But they are legally irrelevant…He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by RAVEC… accordingly, the claimant is already treated exceptionally. The defendant was not rationally required to go still further.”

The Home Office – which has a legal responsibility for the committee’s decisions – opposed the appeal. The hearing is set to conclude on Wednesday, April 9.