Prince Harry Claims Unfair Treatment Over Security in UK Court Battle

[Social Media]

 

Prince Harry Claims Unfair Treatment Over Security in UK Court Battle

 

Prince Harry has appeared in court to argue that he was unfairly treated when his automatic taxpayer-funded police protection was withdrawn following his decision to step back from royal duties. The Duke of Sussex, now 40, is suing the UK home secretary over a decision made by the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec), which removed his entitlement to publicly funded security while visiting the country.

 

Arriving at the Court of Appeal in London on Tuesday, flanked by two bodyguards, Harry claimed he had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” compared to others in similar positions. His legal team insists he is not demanding a reinstatement of the same protection he received as a working royal but is instead asking to be treated like any other individual considered for security under Ravec’s guidelines. “His 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,” said his barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC.

 

Fatima argued that Ravec failed to apply its usual risk assessment procedures to Harry’s case, opting instead for a “bespoke process” that wasn’t used for anyone else. “Harry does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” she told the court. She also stated that the risk management board, which provides independent expert advice to Ravec, was not consulted in Harry’s case, meaning the committee made its decision without vital analysis.

 

 

In a written statement submitted to the court, Harry’s team said that he and Meghan, 43, felt forced to step back from being full-time working royals in 2020 because “they were not being protected by the institution”. However, they had hoped to continue supporting the late Queen Elizabeth as privately funded members of the royal family.

 

The prince, who was seen taking notes in a cream-coloured notebook with a black pen, has returned to the UK for the first time since attending the WellChild awards in September. It is understood that despite being in the country, King Charles did not meet with Harry before departing for Italy on Monday.

 

During the hearing, the court was told that following the Ravec decision, an al-Qaeda-linked group had issued a threat calling for Harry “to be murdered”, claiming his death “would please the Muslim community.” Additionally, his legal team cited the “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023, which they say demonstrated a “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”.

 

The court has also heard that Harry offered to pay for his own security during a key family meeting at Sandringham in January 2020. In his memoir Spare, Harry described the terms of that departure as a “fix”. Fatima told the court, “It was deemed that Harry and his wife ceased to be full-time working members of the royal family on March 31, 2020, even though it had been agreed at the Sandringham meeting that ‘this agreement will be reviewed in one year’s time to determine suitability for all parties’.”

 

Representing the home secretary, Sir James Eadie KC argued that Harry’s changed status meant his entitlement to security could no longer be automatic. “The decision was that, his position having materially changed, protective security would not be authorised on the same basis as before. Instead, [Harry’s] security would be considered depending on the circumstances,” he explained. Eadie added that Harry would still be eligible for protection “in particular circumstances” when visiting the UK.

 

Harry previously faced a legal setback when a High Court judge dismissed one of his claims, leaving him with a legal bill that could reach £1 million. The Home Office disclosed that its own legal expenses had already reached £407,000 before the earlier trial began. If Harry is successful in this case, the additional legal costs, which are expected to be substantial, could be covered by taxpayers.

 

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, announced that the court would hear two and a half hours of confidential evidence behind closed doors on Wednesday. The hearing is ongoing.

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-04-10

 

 

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

Prince Harry Claims Unfair Treatment Over Security in UK Court Battle

 

Prince Harry has appeared in court to argue that he was unfairly treated when his automatic taxpayer-funded police protection was withdrawn following his decision to step back from royal duties. The Duke of Sussex, now 40, is suing the UK home secretary over a decision made by the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec), which removed his entitlement to publicly funded security while visiting the country.

 

Arriving at the Court of Appeal in London on Tuesday, flanked by two bodyguards, Harry claimed he had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” compared to others in similar positions. His legal team insists he is not demanding a reinstatement of the same protection he received as a working royal but is instead asking to be treated like any other individual considered for security under Ravec’s guidelines. “His 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,” said his barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC.

 

Fatima argued that Ravec failed to apply its usual risk assessment procedures to Harry’s case, opting instead for a “bespoke process” that wasn’t used for anyone else. “Harry does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” she told the court. She also stated that the risk management board, which provides independent expert advice to Ravec, was not consulted in Harry’s case, meaning the committee made its decision without vital analysis.

 

 

In a written statement submitted to the court, Harry’s team said that he and Meghan, 43, felt forced to step back from being full-time working royals in 2020 because “they were not being protected by the institution”. However, they had hoped to continue supporting the late Queen Elizabeth as privately funded members of the royal family.

 

The prince, who was seen taking notes in a cream-coloured notebook with a black pen, has returned to the UK for the first time since attending the WellChild awards in September. It is understood that despite being in the country, King Charles did not meet with Harry before departing for Italy on Monday.

 

During the hearing, the court was told that following the Ravec decision, an al-Qaeda-linked group had issued a threat calling for Harry “to be murdered”, claiming his death “would please the Muslim community.” Additionally, his legal team cited the “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023, which they say demonstrated a “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”.

 

The court has also heard that Harry offered to pay for his own security during a key family meeting at Sandringham in January 2020. In his memoir Spare, Harry described the terms of that departure as a “fix”. Fatima told the court, “It was deemed that Harry and his wife ceased to be full-time working members of the royal family on March 31, 2020, even though it had been agreed at the Sandringham meeting that ‘this agreement will be reviewed in one year’s time to determine suitability for all parties’.”

 

Representing the home secretary, Sir James Eadie KC argued that Harry’s changed status meant his entitlement to security could no longer be automatic. “The decision was that, his position having materially changed, protective security would not be authorised on the same basis as before. Instead, [Harry’s] security would be considered depending on the circumstances,” he explained. Eadie added that Harry would still be eligible for protection “in particular circumstances” when visiting the UK.

 

Harry previously faced a legal setback when a High Court judge dismissed one of his claims, leaving him with a legal bill that could reach £1 million. The Home Office disclosed that its own legal expenses had already reached £407,000 before the earlier trial began. If Harry is successful in this case, the additional legal costs, which are expected to be substantial, could be covered by taxpayers.

 

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, announced that the court would hear two and a half hours of confidential evidence behind closed doors on Wednesday. The hearing is ongoing.

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-04-10

 

 

He will never been grown up. Just a whining kid.

I wonder if he could care for himself once or rely on someone to change his nappies.😕

[kingstonkid]

He probably  thought he could  write spare do the interviews and everyone would think he was a good  boy. Eventually  daddy and the government are going to  reach their limit.  Tell trmp that if there's an issue boot him and take away the Sussex titles.   

 

Just imagine the he'll big brother  can rain on him after he becomes king.

[sammieuk1]

This is all the ginger dose now is try and bring claims' what an awful bunch of freeloaders we have to pay for day in day out boot the lot out and unfreeze the pensioners 🤔
 

 

[DaveBart]

Harry is nothing but a knob jockey 

[Purdey]

Marry American and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Can't say I have any sympathy for him. Get a real job.

[CHdiver]

He could change his hair colour to black. Or better, put a paper bag over his head. Nobody would recognise him that way.  Then he will need less Body Guards and can safe some money. 

[JonnyF]

When you leave your job you no longer get the benefits.

 

Entitled little rich kid. 

 

Maybe bragging about how many Taliban you think you killed wasn't the best idea?

 

Stripping the titles is long overdue. Rachel is now flogging jam preserve using her titles. What a couple of grifters.

[thaibeachlovers]

Never a good idea to embarrass the royals. They have ways.....................

 

For the cost of the court case the little cry babies could have paid for their own security, or perhaps it would be a better idea to never return to the UK. He won't be missed.

[PETERTHEEATER]

I didn't know that he employed a man with a knighthood to take care of his car.

What is the salary of Master of the Rolls anyway?😋

[expat_4_life]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

Prince Harry has appeared in court to argue that he was unfairly treated when his automatic taxpayer-funded police protection was withdrawn following his decision to step back from royal duties.

 

Let me see if I got this straight, Harry quits his day job, marries the Princess Meghan, moves to California - then complains he doesn't get job benefits anymore. 

[ukrules]

He is still the Kings son, the Jihadists would love to get their hands on him and as such regardless of what he says or does he should be adequately protected from the enemies of the British State.

[rough diamond]

21 minutes ago, ukrules said:

He is still the Kings son, the Jihadists would love to get their hands on him and as such regardless of what he says or does he should be adequately protected from the enemies of the British State.

Why?

He walked away from the family and that is one of the consequences.

Why should the British tax payer pay for the protection of someone who no longer wishes to have anything to do with the UK?

[rough diamond]

23 minutes ago, ukrules said:

He is still the Kings son

Is he?

Ginger hair and all!

[ukrules]

13 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

Why?

He walked away from the family and that is one of the consequences.

Why should the British tax payer pay for the protection of someone who no longer wishes to have anything to do with the UK?

 

Why? Because it is a bad look if he is tortured and murdered live on TV. I'm sure we've all seen the other ISIS videos which were circulating a few years back, he would get the same treatment.

That's exactly what will happen if they get their hands on him and it's merely due to who he is.

This demands the highest level of protection possible regardless of his personal opinions. I hate the whinging leftist views but this guy does need protecting from the enemies of the state - he is a very high value target and every move he makes will be watched by the enemies of the state.

 

[rough diamond]

Just now, ukrules said:

 

Why? Because it is a bad look if he is tortured and murdered live on TV. I'm sure we've all seen the other ISIS videos which were circulating a few years back, he would get the same treatment.

That's exactly what will happen if they get their hands on him and it's merely due to who he is.

This demands the highest level of protection possible regardless of his personal opinions. I hate the whinging leftist views but this guy does need protecting from the enemies of the state - he is a very high value target and every move he makes will be watched by the enemies of the state.

 

His problem not mine.  I have no wish to pay for his stupidity.

[ukrules]

38 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

His problem not mine.  I have no wish to pay for his stupidity.

 

It is the governments problem, not yours or mine.

 

[rough diamond]

11 minutes ago, ukrules said:

 

It is the governments problem, not yours or mine.

 

It is my tax money he wants to use to pay for his protection so it is my problem!

He seems happy enough to come to London to plead his case without the UK Government paying for his so called protection.

I wonder just how much he is paying his lawyers etc to bring this case!

[billd766]

It seems as though this court case is a double edged sword.

 

https://www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-harry-tax-latest-duke-of-sussex-us-update

 

He has no job in the UK and AFAIK, he has no income, other than his Army pension which is also taxable. If he owns property then he will pay local council taxes. If it is rented out, he will pay tax on that income as well.

However as he lives in the USA, the IRS will tax his worldwide income. It also seems as though, if he has any money left over from paying his legal bills. the IRS will tax him on that as well.

 

All he had/has to do is hire his own bodyguards, both in the UK and the USA and none of this would have happened.

 

He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and IMHO he still believes that he is far more important than the average person in the UK, and therefore still believes that he has more rights than anybody else, at the UK taxpayers expense.

 

Hopefully one day he will wake up and realise how important he really is to the UK, but perhaps not.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, ukrules said:

He is still the Kings son, the Jihadists would love to get their hands on him and as such regardless of what he says or does he should be adequately protected from the enemies of the British State.

Why should the British taxpayer protect him in the US?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, ukrules said:

 

Why? Because it is a bad look if he is tortured and murdered live on TV. I'm sure we've all seen the other ISIS videos which were circulating a few years back, he would get the same treatment.

That's exactly what will happen if they get their hands on him and it's merely due to who he is.

This demands the highest level of protection possible regardless of his personal opinions. I hate the whinging leftist views but this guy does need protecting from the enemies of the state - he is a very high value target and every move he makes will be watched by the enemies of the state.

 

Then he should live in the UK. Up to him.

Personally I don't care what happens to a guy that dissed his own family, runs off to another country and then demands the British protect him.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, ukrules said:

He is still the Kings son, the Jihadists would love to get their hands on him and as such regardless of what he says or does he should be adequately protected from the enemies of the British State.

So? He rejected his family first. Boo hoo.

[AboutThaim]

On 4/10/2025 at 3:25 PM, rough diamond said:

Is he?

Ginger hair and all!

 

[JonnyF]

Poor Hawwy.

 

Still upset William got 2 sausages and he only got 1.

 

If Rachel sells enough jam he will be able to hire his own security.