PRINCE Harry has arrived for day two of his security appeal after yesterday moaning he was “singled out for inferior treatment”.
The Duke of Sussex brought the 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 sue the Home Office because it refused to spend taxpayers' money on bodyguards after he left the .
But in February last year, High judge Sir Peter Lane and ruled Ravec's approach was not irrational or procedurally unfair.
Harry has returned to the in for a day two of his appeal against the ruling.
His lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC Harry has been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”.
She also touched on Megxit – claiming in written documents that Harry and felt “forced” to leave to the Royal Family.
The lawyer added: “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.”
Ms Fatima told the court Ravec came up with a “bespoke” process not applied to anyone else, but that Harry doesn't accept bespoke means “better”.
She continued: “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.”
In court documents, his team highlighted “recent security incidents” surrounding the Duke.
This included Al-Qaeda calling for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec's decision in February 2020 to change his level of security.
Another refers to a May 2023 incident after “[Prince Harry] and his wife were involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in City”.
In their own written arguments, the government say Harry's “bare disagreement” with the decision to remove his security “does not amount to a ground of appeal”.
They claimed that while Harry “disagrees vehemently” with his security arrangements, his views are “largely irrelevant”.
The Home Office also claim they did not act “irrationally” and the previous judge was right to dismiss Harry's claim.
Barrister Sir James Eadie KC argued his appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
The royal moaned he was unable to return with and 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 previously 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 to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused – with insiders insisting cops are not “guns for hire”.
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 day in court yesterday came as Meghan launched her first podcast episode in which she .
While in the UK, he , who flew out to with Camilla for a state visit.
It is not known if Harryrequested a meeting, but it is believed the pair have now not seen each other in person for 14 months.
The hearing is due to conclude today with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
