PRINCE Harry has arrived at the High Court in London for an appeal after he lost a bid for publicly-funded security while in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex brought a case against theand the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
claimed he was “singled out” after his round-the-clock royal protection was stripped in the wake of.
He also attempted to suethe Home Officebecause it refused to spend taxpayers'moneyon bodyguards after he left the.
But in February last year, High judge Sir Peter Lane and ruled Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.
Harry has now returned to the court in for a against the ruling.
He and were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
moaned he was unable to return with his children,and, “because it is too dangerous”.
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.
Harry's lawyers argued he was “singled out”; and treated “less favourably”; in the decision.
They added his treatment was “unlawful and unfair”; and warned of “the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack”; against the duke.
Harry also wanted tofund his own Met Police armed bodyguardsbut officials refused – with insiders insisting cops are not “guns for hire”.
Ravec claimed that allowing Harry to pay for his own protective security would be contrary to the public interest and undermine public confidence in the .
They also said the decision could not be reconciled with rules that expressly permit charging for certain services.
This included using privately-funded police at one-off events such as matches, marathons and .
While Home Office lawyers argued he was no longer part of a group of people whose “security position”; was under regular review by Ravec.
But they said the body was entitled to conclude the duke's protection should be “bespoke” and considered on a “case-by-case” basis.
In his ruling in February, Sir Peter Lane said there had not been any “unlawfulness” in the call to pull Harry's security.
He said Harry’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”;.
The judge added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of 28 February 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”;
Harry's appeal bid comes amid over his charity Sentebale.
The duke last month sensationally quit the trust, which he co-founded in 2006 in memory of his mother,.
Fellow royal patron Prince Seeiso of Lesotho and the rest of the Sentebale board also resigned after falling out with boss Dr Sophie Chandauka.
of bullying and harassment with the Charity Commission watchdog investigating her claims.
