Prince Harry given green light to appeal his High Court defeat over police protection
- Harry took legal action against the Home Office over the level of his protection
- He claimed he was 'singled out' and treated 'less favourably' by the body
- A High Court judge said the decision was not irrational nor procedurally unfair
Prince Harry has been given the green light to appeal his High Court defeat over changing the level of his personal security when he visits the UK.
Harry took legal action against the Home Office over a February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
The royal was told he would no longer be given the 'same degree' of publicly-funded protection when in the UK - but his lawyers claimed he was 'singled out' and treated 'less favourably' by the body.
A spokesman for the Duke of Sussex at the time said he would appeal, adding that he was 'not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec's own rules'.
But in another blow, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the duke's case in February and concluded Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.
However, Prince Harry has now been given the green light to challenge Sir Peter's dismissal at the Court of Appeal, according to an order by Lord Justice Bean dated May 23.
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, departs the High Court in June 2023
The Duke of Sussex will be able to appeal against the dismissal over a decision to change the level of his personal security when he visits the UK. Pictured outside the High Court in 2023
Prince Harry has been given the green light to appeal his High Court defeat. Pictured at The Invictus Games Foundation 10th Anniversary Service at St Paul's Cathedral on May 8
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex at a polo fundraiser event in Lagos, Nigeria, on May 12
In his 52-page partially redacted ruling dismissing the duke's claim, Sir Peter said Harry's lawyers had taken 'an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process'.
He added: 'The 'bespoke' process devised for the claimant in the decision of February 28 2020 was, and is, legally sound.'
The judge said he accepted comments from Sir Richard Mottram, the former chairman of Ravec, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry's legal arguments in February 2020, 'I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons'.
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.
On his arrival in the UK earlier last month Harry had suggested he wouldn't meet Charles as his father was 'too busy'. Pictured: King Charles visits the RHS Chelsea Flower Show, May 20
Prince Harry and Meghan visit the Lightway Academy, school in Abuja, Nigeria, May 10
For their 72 hours 'private trip' Harry and Meghan had their own four-man security team which they paid for themselves, and they were also been given unprecedented security by Nigeria
After the ruling earlier this year, a legal spokesman for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: 'The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec's own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec's own written policy.
'In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.
'The duke's case is that the so-called 'bespoke process' that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.
'The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.'
Two days before the order allowing the royal to appeal, it was reported Prince Harry turned down a meeting with King Charles in because it didn't come with security provisions.
It would have left him staying in a 'visible location with public entrance and exit points and no police protection'.
Instead he chose to stay at a hotel - presumably with members of the public - because it meant he 'could come and go unseen', claimed The Telegraph.
About a week before that - on May 10 - Prince Harry and Meghan's visit to Nigeria (the world's 12th most dangerous country) raised eyebrows.
Official advice from the UK government is to avoid 'all but essential travel' to parts of Nigeria which has a murder rate of 34 per 100,000 people (the UK Is just over one) and is prone to kidnappings.
Although the capital Abuja where Meghan and Harry flew into is deemed relatively safe, the military base at Kaduna in northwest Nigeria on the itinerary, is seen as a hot 'red zone' – and comparatively far more dangerous than London.
Even locals have been advised to avoid the main highway linking Abuja to Kaduna which has been dubbed 'kidnap alley' after a spate of abductions earlier this year and is in parts ruled by armed bandits.
For their 72 hours 'private trip' Harry and Meghan have their own four-man security team which they have paid for themselves, and they have also been given unprecedented security by Nigeria.
