The Duke of Sussex claims his offer to pay for his own security was not passed on to decision-makers by the Royal Household, the High Court has heard.
Prince Harry is bringing legal action against the Home Office over the February 2020 decision that his level of personal protective security would be diminished after he stood down as a working Royal.
The Duke says he wants to bring his children to visit from the US but insists he and his family are “unable to return to his home” because it is too dangerous.
Applying for permission for a full judicial review of the security decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) – which falls under the remit of the Home Office, the Duke argued he had been the victim of “procedural unfairness”.
Shaeed Fatima QC, for Harry, told the court he “didn’t know at that stage that the Royal Household was involved at all” in the decision-making process, and he had been told it was “an independent decision”.
The court heard there were “significant tensions” between Harry and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, at the time, and he says he did not have full knowledge of the RAVEC decision-making process or make-up.
Harry claims he believed his points were being “fully and properly communicated to RAVEC”, but he was denied the chance to make submissions to the committee directly.
“He was materially prejudiced…because his offer to pay (for security) was not conveyed to RAVEC before the decision was made,” said Ms Fatima in written submissions.
“He does not know what else – as communicated by him to the Royal Household – was not fully/timeously conveyed to RAVEC.
“He was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of RAVEC’s process (and) the involvement of certain individuals in the RAVEC process prior to the decision being made.
“It is arguable that, if there had been a fair process, RAVEC would or could have reached a different decision.”
Lawyers for the Home Office say RAVEC was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that the Duke’s security arrangements will be considered on a “case by case” basis, and argue that permission for a full judicial review should be refused.
Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, said in written arguments that any tensions between Harry and Royal Household officials are “irrelevant” to his change in status.
He says Harry believes he may have objected to officials in the Royal Household being involved in the RAVEC decision – due to the “tensions” – but insisted that argument is “irrelevant”.
“The inability of the claimant even now to explain how a process of representations could or would have assisted is striking,” said Sir James.
Parts of the court process are being conducted in private due to the sensitive nature of the security details. Mr Justice Swift has said he hopes to deliver his judgment before the end of July on whether a full judicial review can be brought.
