Trending
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex were “forced” to step back from royal family duties because they were “not being protected by the institution”.
The 40-year-old Duke of Sussex made the claim as he challenged a decision made by the High Court in 2024 which dismissed his case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
He has now launched a fresh legal battle at the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn that ruling by arguing his security arrangements were unjustly downgraded after he stepped down as a working royal in 2020 with his wife Meghan, 43.
A two-day hearing in London that started on Tuesday marks the latest development in a long-running legal dispute over whether Harry should continue to receive state-funded police protection when visiting the UK.
The case stems from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to leave their roles as senior royals — a move commonly referred to as “Megxit”.
Harry’s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the court the couple felt they had no choice.
In written submissions, she said: “On 8 January 2020, (the duke) 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.”
The barrister argued Ravec had adopted a “bespoke” process in reviewing Harry’s protection — a procedure she claimed was not used for any other individual.
She said: “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.”
The barrister also said Ravec’s failure to conduct a Risk Management Board (RMB) assessment may have resulted in a flawed decision.
Court documents submitted by Harry’s legal team highlighted threats against him, including a call by Al-Qaeda for Harry “to be murdered” after his security status was changed in February 2020.
They also referenced a 2023 incident in New York, in which Harry and Meghan, 43, were involved in a high-speed car chase with paparazzi.
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex were “forced” to step back from royal family duties because they were “not being protected by the institution”.
The 40-year-old Duke of Sussex made the claim as he challenged a decision made by the High Court in 2024 which dismissed his case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
He has now launched a fresh legal battle at the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn that ruling by arguing his security arrangements were unjustly downgraded after he stepped down as a working royal in 2020 with his wife Meghan, 43.
A two-day hearing in London that started on Tuesday marks the latest development in a long-running legal dispute over whether Harry should continue to receive state-funded police protection when visiting the UK.
The case stems from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to leave their roles as senior royals — a move commonly referred to as “Megxit”.
Harry’s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the court the couple felt they had no choice.
In written submissions, she said: “On 8 January 2020, (the duke) 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.”
The barrister argued Ravec had adopted a “bespoke” process in reviewing Harry’s protection — a procedure she claimed was not used for any other individual.
She said: “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.”
The barrister also said Ravec’s failure to conduct a Risk Management Board (RMB) assessment may have resulted in a flawed decision.
Court documents submitted by Harry’s legal team highlighted threats against him, including a call by Al-Qaeda for Harry “to be murdered” after his security status was changed in February 2020.
They also referenced a 2023 incident in New York, in which Harry and Meghan, 43, were involved in a high-speed car chase with paparazzi.
It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution
The Us Media 2025
