Prince Harry’s decision to withdraw from his life as a Royal who works led to a “set of circumstances,” a government lawyer told the Court of Appeal.
Sir James Eadie KC said it was fair to adopt a flexible approach to the level of personal security which should be administered after his return at the beginning of 2020.
The Duke of Sussex asks three judges to cancel the decision to demarize the police protection given to him at public expenses during his visit to the United Kingdom.
On Tuesday, the first day of his call, his lawyer argued that he had been subjected to a “so-called tailor-made process” with regard to his British security, which saw him “designated for a different, unjustified and lower treatment”.
Prince Harry was again in court for the second day of the hearing, with a crowd of photographers and spectators pending when he arrived. He praised journalists before entering the court building.
Sitting in the same seat as Tuesday, alongside his lawyer, the Duke sometimes took notes while he listened to Sir James having the position of the government.
Sir James told court that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), which decides on security levels, was governed by the “royal prerogative” – not the requirements of a law.
His chair, Sir Richard Mottram, has been in charge for more than a decade and was “on the front line responsible” if Ravec was wrong, he said.
As a high-end civil servant with an experience supervising national security, “it is difficult to imagine that a better placed decision maker to forge his own point of view,” he said in court.
While Ravec had “reference conditions” to decide on security measures, there was “nothing to suggest that they were designed to function in a rigid and non -flexible manner”.
Unlike most of the senior royal family, Prince Harry decided to live abroad and not to make official commitments.
He previously declared that the security of his family, with whom he moved to California in 2020, was at the heart of the case.
This decision was in a “proper category,” said Sir James, and the committee was right to consider the case on its merits.
The fundamental objective of the members and advisers of the Committee, he said, was to “make nuanced judgments on the protection of security, which brought all their expertise to take into account, including decision-making regarding unusual cases and what process should be the most appropriate”.
He later added that the Prince Harry’s security decision was “carefully considered” and “nothing has been excluded or closed in the future”, including carrying out a risk assessment.
Because the Ministry of the Interior has the legal responsibility of Ravec’s decisions, it opposes the call on its behalf.
Duke’s safety in the United Kingdom is currently decided on a case-by-case basis, in the same way as other high-level visitors in the country.
The details of Prince Harry’s current security agreements and the levels he would like to receive was not discussed in court, for security reasons.
More sensitive information is discussed during a closing audience, without the media present on Wednesday afternoon.
After the public hearing, a woman who was sitting in court shouted to journalists: “If you are members of the press, you are the reason why he is not in England.”
Prince Harry’s bodyguards led her out of the field before she was allowed to leave.
He then returned to the private section of the hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, which was to end on Wednesday afternoon.
The three judges should reserve a judgment on a later date.
Tuesday, the prince’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, told court that Ravec had not followed his own standard proceduresBecause he chose to demarcate his security without having an expert risk analysis of which he was confronted.
She argued that the previous judge was wrong to have concluded that the committee could make decisions without such an analysis, and said that the Duke does not accept that “tailor” means “better”.
