The Duke of Sussex has launched a legal challenge claiming the decision was unfair because he was not privy to details of how it was made and was not given the opportunity to make representations to the council involved. A spokesman previously said he wants to bring his children to visit from the US, but he and his family “can’t go back home” because it’s too dangerous. In February 2020, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Rights and Public Figures (known as Ravec) announced that the Duke, his wife and children would no longer automatically receive police protection when visiting the UK. The High Court was told the duke did not know the commission existed or that members of the royal household were involved and believed its decisions were “independent”. Legal documents filed by his representatives said that at the time, there were “significant” tensions between the Duke and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young. Shaheed Fatima QC, representing the duke, told a hearing on Thursday: “He should have been told so he could look into things properly and make representations. “Had there been a fair process, Ravek would have or could have made a different decision … the role of the royal household as an equal partner in the process was inappropriate.” Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office – which is ultimately responsible for Ravek, said there were no grounds for injustice. He told the court: “He [Prince Harry] he knew his security status was being reviewed on the basis of whether automatic provision should continue as he would cease to be a working king, and that was enough to enable him to say whatever he wanted to say about it.’ Sir James said there was no indication of “impropriety” involving the Queen’s private secretary or any other member of the royal household. Harry and Meghan are key dates in the Megxit crisis “Nobody was saying ‘you’re not going to get security’, the question was on what basis – is it going to be flexible or is it going to be automatic,” he added. Sir James said Ravech had changed the provision of security for the duke and his family from permanent to “on a case-by-case basis” to reflect that he would stop carrying out official duties and become primarily a “private person living abroad”. He argued that although the duke was still a public figure, he would no longer attend events in the UK “as a representative of the Queen”, so his entitlement to public security funding was different. Ms Fatima said the duke had offered to cover the costs of police protection, but Ravek declined his offer in January. Sir James told the court that there was “nothing illegal about the later decision that people should not be allowed to simply require security by way of payment for the police”. Mr Justice Swift reserved judgment on whether to grant permission for a full judicial review at a later date, following a closed hearing on details of private communications and sensitive security material. “I’m not making a decision about where the claim succeeds or fails, I’m deciding whether it’s arguable,” he told the court.
