Royal news live: Prince Harry claims he was ‘singled out for inferior treatment’ in High Court appeal over security

The Duke of Sussex did not meet the King before Harry’s High Court date, according to reports.

The pair are believed to have last met soon after Charles announced his cancer diagnosis in February 2024 and his son, who now lives with his family in California, rushed from the US to see him.

Harry, 40, came to the UK to attend the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday morning for an appeal in his legal challenge over his security arrangements while visiting the UK.

He waved at journalists and did not reply as a reporter asked: “Did you speak to your dad?”

The duke is said to have arrived in London on Sunday, hours before the King, 76, left with the Queen on Monday for a state visit to Italy.

Harry also visited the UK without meeting his father in May last year, during a trip to celebrate his Invictus Games.

He said at the time that he hoped to see his father “soon” after the King’s “full programme” meant a reunion was not then possible.

In written submissions for the Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, barrister Sir James Eadie KC said the Duke of Sussex’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees”.

He said: “(The Home Office) has, and continues to, treat (the duke) in a bespoke manner. He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.

“Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.”

He stressed that the approach was a matter for the judgement of Ravec, which the judge in the previous court case had found to be lawful.

In his ruling, the judge found that Prince Harry had relied upon an “inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of how Ravec conducts security arrangements, and a “mechanistic, overly literal approach” which was misconceived.

He added: “The appeal is fairly to be characterised in the same way. It involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture.”

The King has been made a Knight Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy, and he presented Mr Mattarella with the insignia for a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath.

“It goes back quite a long way,” said Charles “It’s just a token really of our appreciation, you’ve served for so long.”

“I’m humbled, your majesty,” Mr Mattarella replied.

The Queen was made a Dame Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy, and told her host: “I’m very honoured and humbled.”

While the King and president held talks, Camilla and Ms Mattarella viewed a selection of antique books on horsemanship in the Biblioteca del Piffetti and toured the State Rooms of the 16th century palace.

The royal couple also visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, at Altare della Patria in Rome, before they are due to visit more of the city’s ancient monuments including the Colosseum.

In written submissions for the Duke of Sussex – some of which were redacted for confidentiality reasons – Shaheed Fatima KC said al Qaida had called for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec’s decision in February 2020 to change the level of security the duke is given while in the UK.

She said that Harry’s security team were informed that the terrorist group had published a document which stated that his “assassination would please the Muslim community”.

Ms Fatima also told the court that Harry and the Duchess of Sussex were involved in a “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023 involving “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”.

She continued: “The judge wrongly and inappropriately deferred to Ravec in interpreting the terms of reference and evaluation criteria for decision-making.

“The judge failed to appreciate the role of the RMB (risk management board) analysis in Ravec’s decision-making.

“The judge erred in finding that the terms of reference granted Ravec the discretion to simply not use the terms of reference in certain cases.”

In her submissions at the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Duke of Sussex, Shaheed Fatima KC said that Ravec’s reasoning to not carry out a risk management board (RMB) assessment “does not stack up”.

She said: “The lack of scrutiny led to the judge wrongly accepting Ravec’s evidence, and that evidence says that a so-called ‘bespoke’ process makes much more sense for the appellant than the RMB.

“It does not make sense when one considers in detail the expert analysis that the RMB assessment involves. It is impossible to speculate whether the appellant would be in the same position had he been given the benefit of the process.”

She later said: “We say in the present case that the need for the RMB assessment was part of the procedure, but also a benefit.”

Prince Harry’s lawyer has argued that Ravec’s failure to carry out a risk management board assessment in reviewing his security means that they did not receive the “expert analysis” required to consider if he should be treated similarly to others in the ‘VIP category’.

She continued: “Ravec did not make a reasonable decision because the appellant’s position is analogous to those in that ‘other VIP’ category.

“Had the judge properly evaluated the evidence, he would have come to that conclusion.”

Ravec is the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, which decides the level of protection given by the security services to members of the Royal Family and other high profile people in the UK.

Meghan Markle has made a rare acknowledgement of the “media backlash” she’s experienced in recent years.

Analysis from Statista in 2020 showed that Markle received overwhelmingly negative media coverage with 43 per cent of articles deemed negative, 36 per cent neutral, and only 20 per cent positive.

Read the full article here:

In written submissions to the Court of Appeal, Shaheed Fatima KC, for the Duke of Sussex, said: “This appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person.”

She continued: “On January 8 2020, (the Duke of Sussex) 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 later said that Harry was “not in a position to make any informed representations to Ravec”.

She added: (His) security does not appear to have been discussed at any formal Ravec meeting and there are no official notes or detailed minutes recording the approach to be taken to (his) security and the rationale for it.”

Opening the Duke of Sussex’s case at the Court of Appeal, his barrister Shaheed Fatima KC said: “When Ravec made its February 2020 decision about the appellant’s protective security, it did not apply its own terms of reference to that decision-making process.”

She continued to say Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process’”.

She added that Prince Harry does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’, and that it is his submission that he has been singled out for “unjustified and inferior treatment”.

Ms Fatima added: “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.”