Importance Score: 45 / 100 🔵
Prince Harry Escorted from High Court Amid Supporter Incident at Security Hearing
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, attended a High Court hearing concerning his security arrangements today, where proceedings were briefly interrupted by a demonstrative supporter. The Duke was closely protected by his security personnel as he was led from the courtroom following the minor disruption.
Unexpected Interruption During Hearing
The individual, described as a woman in her 50s, with glasses and a shaved head, had drawn attention prior to the disruption. Arriving late to the public gallery, she exhibited restless behavior, shifting positions and manipulating multiple mobile phones and a notepad.
Security Personnel Vigilant
David Langdown, the Duke’s long-serving security chief, and another security detail appeared attentive to the woman’s actions, possibly assessing any potential security risk. During a recess, intended to allow the public and press to exit before a confidential session on security matters commenced, Langdown and his colleague positioned themselves strategically between the Duke and the woman as he left the room at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Outburst and Removal
As Prince Harry passed the woman, who was within arm’s reach, she vocally declared her support for him, with words to the effect of: “I support you Prince Harry.” As the Duke was quickly ushered out, the woman then addressed the press gallery, stating: “If you’re members of the press, you’re the reason he’s not in England.” Court security subsequently intervened, escorting her from the building and away from public areas.
When approached by reporters for comment, the woman declined to elaborate on her statements. Following the incident and her removal, Prince Harry, accompanied by his security team, returned to the courtroom for the private session.
vCard.red is a free platform for creating a mobile-friendly digital business cards. You can easily create a vCard and generate a QR code for it, allowing others to scan and save your contact details instantly.
The platform allows you to display contact information, social media links, services, and products all in one shareable link. Optional features include appointment scheduling, WhatsApp-based storefronts, media galleries, and custom design options.
Prince Harry Challenges Security Downgrade in High Court Appeal
Earlier in the hearing, which is addressing Prince Harry’s challenge to the reduction of his security provision, the court heard arguments from the Home Secretary’s legal representatives. At one point, Prince Harry displayed visible frustration, reportedly throwing down his pen and reacting with apparent disbelief during the proceedings.
The High Court has been presented with details regarding the decision to scale back the Prince’s taxpayer-funded security after his choice to relinquish royal duties and reside primarily overseas.
The Duke of Sussex journeyed from California to London for the two-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice. He is seeking to reinstate automatic state security for himself and his family when in the UK.
Prince Harry contends that he has been unfairly “singled out” and subjected to “inferior treatment” after the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) downgraded his security status in February 2020, following his departure from royal responsibilities, often referred to as “Megxit”.
However, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, argued that the department had the authority to adjust his guaranteed full-time police protection without mandatory consultation with the Risk Management Board (RMB).
“RMB risk analysis is the typical procedure in standard cases,” Sir James stated to the High Court. “However, the announcement made by the appellant [Prince Harry] in January 2020, regarding his decision to step back from his Royal Family role and spend the majority of his time abroad, was not a standard case.”
Arguments Presented at the Hearing
Prince Harry arrived at the High Court in the morning and acknowledged onlookers gathered at the entrance. Inside the courtroom, he was seated with his legal team, equipped with a notepad, pen, and water.
The Duke’s legal challenge is against the dismissal of his initial legal action against the Home Office. This stems from Ravec’s determination that his security arrangements should be modified upon visits to his native country due to his changed status as a non-working royal. The legal proceedings have incurred costs to the British taxpayer estimated at £500,000 to date.
Shaheed Fatima KC, Prince Harry’s lawyer, asserted that Ravec had deviated from its own protocols and should have mandated a security assessment by the Risk Management Board (RMB).
Ms. Fatima argued: “The appellant [the Duke of Sussex] disagrees with the notion that bespoke equates to superior – in reality, in his situation, it signifies he has been targeted for disparate, less favorable treatment.”
Sir James Eadie, representing the Home Secretary, countered that Prince Harry’s unprecedented withdrawal from royal duties altered the context entirely. He argued it was “difficult to conceive” of a more qualified individual than the Ravec chair to make a tailored decision regarding the Duke’s revised security needs, given the “unique and unusual circumstances” of Prince Harry’s situation.
Sir James refuted claims of unfair treatment towards the Duke, stating: “He was not being singled out – conversely, the process adopted offered him positive benefits.”
During the Home Secretary’s presentation against the appeal, Prince Harry was observed making detailed notes on a blue adhesive note, which was then passed to his legal team, eventually reaching Ms. Fatima KC.
Background to Security Concerns
Ms. Fatima KC stated that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle “felt compelled to step back” from primary royal duties in 2020 because they believed they were not adequately protected by the institution.
However, the Home Office barrister countered that the Duke of Sussex’s appeal reflects a “continued failure to see the bigger picture.”
In her opening arguments, Ms. Fatima reiterated that Prince Harry had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” when his previous high-level security from the Metropolitan Police was removed.
Ms. Fatima argued that Ravec’s February 2020 security decision for the Duke did not adhere to its established terms of reference and employed a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process’.”
She emphasized, “The appellant [Prince 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.”
In written submissions, Ms. Fatima KC stated: “This appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person.” She added that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex felt “forced to step back” from royal duties due to perceived lack of protection, but wished to continue supporting the late Queen as privately funded royals.
Ms. Fatima further argued that Prince Harry was not given the opportunity to provide informed input to Ravec and that there was a lack of formal documentation concerning the decision-making process regarding his security arrangements.
Hearing Conclusion and Wider Context
The hearing, presided over by senior judges, is expected to conclude today, with a written decision to be issued at a later date. Meanwhile, it has emerged that King Charles III reportedly did not meet with Prince Harry during his recent visit to the UK, despite both being in the country at the same time. The Duke of Sussex arrived from Los Angeles while the King was resting at Highgrove before a State Visit to Italy.
Prince Harry is contesting a 2020 decision that reduced his level of security after he and Meghan transitioned away from royal duties and relocated to the United States. He maintains that he requires armed bodyguards, funded by the British taxpayer, due to safety concerns when returning to the UK with his family.
Divergent views are understood to exist between the King and his son regarding this legal challenge, which has already accumulated a significant cost to the public purse.
Prince Harry contends that his children cannot feel “at home” or “safe” in the UK without the full reinstatement of his police protection. Ms. Fatima KC argued that Ravec did not adhere to its guidelines by failing to commission a Risk Management Board assessment, opting instead for a “bespoke” approach.
The hearing’s outcome and its implications for royal security arrangements remain pending.