The Duke of Sussex has been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment”, the Court of Appeal has heard in his legal challenge over the level of personal security provided to him while in the United Kingdom.
Prince Harry, 40, made a surprise appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London on Tuesday, attending the hearing in person. The Duke was seen entering the building in the morning, waving to members of the public and the press, but making no comment before proceedings began. Inside the courtroom, he sat quietly behind his legal team, pen in hand, occasionally making notes.
The appeal centres around a decision made in 2020 by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), shortly after Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped down as senior working royals and relocated abroad. Ravec decided the Duke would no longer receive the same level of taxpayer-funded police protection as before, despite the continued threats against him.
Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane upheld the Government’s position, ruling that Ravec’s decision had been lawful. However, Harry’s legal team is now challenging that judgment, arguing that the process used to determine his security arrangements was fundamentally flawed.
Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Duke, told the Court of Appeal that Harry had not been assessed under Ravec’s standard terms of reference. “Ravec did not seek an assessment from the expert Risk Management Board (RMB),” she said. “Instead, they created a so-called bespoke process for the Duke — one that is inferior, unjustified and fails to meet the proper standard.”
Fatima argued that the absence of a formal risk assessment meant the committee lacked the necessary expert input to make a rational and fair decision. “The fact that he is no longer a working royal and resides abroad does not justify his exclusion from being assessed like other VIPs,” she said. “Security decisions must be based on objective threat assessments, not arbitrary distinctions.”
The Home Office, defending the appeal, maintained that Ravec’s decision was based on a reasonable and contextual evaluation of the Duke’s changing status and circumstances.
Sir James Eadie KC, speaking for the department, said the case “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”, with Harry’s legal team focusing narrowly on isolated aspects of the evidence. “The decision was not to deny him protection entirely,” he added, “but rather to ensure that any protective measures are appropriate for someone who is no longer a full-time working royal and who lives overseas.”
Sir James stressed that Harry is treated in a “bespoke manner” already, and that Ravec retains discretion to consider his security needs on a case-by-case basis whenever he is in the country. “He is no longer part of the cohort whose security is under regular review, but he is brought back into consideration when necessary,” he said.
More Read
He also pointed to the practicality of excluding a full RMB assessment, noting that it had been identified as “difficult to produce in an effective manner” under the circumstances.
In court, the tone remained respectful but firm as each side made their case. Fatima insisted that the current approach undermines public trust in fair treatment and fails to offer the level of protection warranted by Harry’s status and risk profile.
The hearing, presided over by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, is expected to conclude on Wednesday. A written judgment will be handed down at a later date.
The case comes amid ongoing tensions between the Sussexes and the British establishment, with Harry frequently expressing concern for the safety of his family during UK visits — particularly in the wake of threats and intrusions by the press and members of the public.
Whether the appeal succeeds could have implications not only for the Duke himself, but also for broader questions surrounding the treatment of non-working royals and public figures at risk.
