The security, security and life of the Duke of Sussex are at stake in its call against arrangements for its safety while in the United Kingdom, said the court of appeal.
Prince Harry appeared to the High Court of London for a second day when he challenged the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Raches and Public Personalities, known as Rave, that he should receive a different degree of protection at public expenses when he was removed from his functions as Royal and travel abroad.
The Duke’s legal team says that Ravec violated his mandate when he has not obtained an assessment of an “specialized expert organization”, called Risk Management Board. He found a “tailor -made process” for him, which, according to him, had distinguished him for “a different, unjustified and lower treatment”.
By finishing the submissions at the end of the two -day call, the Duke’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, told three judges from the Court of Appeal: “We must not forget the human dimension of this affair. There is a person sitting behind me whose security, security and life whose life is at stake.
“There is a person sitting behind me who says he gets a special and tailor -made process when he knows and has experienced a process that is clearly inferior to all respects.
“His presence here and throughout this call is a powerful illustration, was necessary, that this call means for him and his family.”
The Ministry of the Interior, defending the appeal, said that Harry’s “tailor -made” security provisions are designed to accommodate its “single set of circumstances”.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Ministry of the Interior, said that Ravec’s decision for a “tailor -made” arrangement, according to which the royal security would be decided on a case -by -case basis, had “positive advantages” as a flexible and tailor -made power better suited to the Duke’s circumstances.
It was “difficult to imagine,” said Eaddie, someone more experienced than the president of Ravec, Sir Richard Mottram, a higher official with supervising national security, to make the decision to adapt to “the unique and unusual circumstances of the appellant (Harry)”.
Although no assessment of the risk management board was carried out in the case of Harry, Eadie argued that Ravec’s reference conditions were not designed as “hard rules”. He said: “Ravec is able to take advantage of expertise and is himself an expert and experienced in a very important way.”
The judges were informed of the case of Harry, it is not that he should automatically have the right to the same protection which has been given to him as a royal who works, but that he should be considered within the framework of the mandate and subjected to the same process as any other individual considered as protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason on the contrary “.
A high court judge ruled last year that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, resigned as senior work, was legal. Harry’s legal team maintains that the judge made an error in his judgment.
Wednesday hearing parties took place in private due to security problems. Shortly after the procedure was interrupted to allow the room to be authorized, a member of the public shouted his support for the Duke and said: “If you are a member of the press, you are the reason why he is no longer in England.”
The judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, will give their decision to a later date.
