Prince Harry: High Court told former royal has been 'unjustifiably treated less favourably than others' during hearing against Home Office

The High Court has heard that Prince Harry "has, unjustifiably, been treated less favourably than others" after his personal security detail was cut by the Home Office in February 2020.

The former senior royal, who stepped back from royal duties in January 2020 alongside his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, took his case to the High Court after launching legal action against the Home Office's decision. The Duke of Sussex was told that he would no longer be given the "same degree" of personal protective security one month after his leaving the Royal Family, a decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).

In written statements submitted at the beginning of the trial, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Duke of Sussex, said: "Ravec should have considered the 'impact' that a successful attack on the claimant would have, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal family - which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life - and his ongoing charity work and service to the public.

She added: "Ravec should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK's reputation of a successful attack on the claimant. The claimant's consistent position has been - and remains - that he should be given state security in light of the threats/risks he faces."

Prince Harry is not expected to appear at the trial. His barrister also said: "The starting point in this case is about the right to security and safety of a person - there cannot be a right of greater importance."

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, argued in written submissions that the Duke of Sussex had been treated in a "bespoke" legal manner concerning his security arrangement. Sir James said: "In summary, Ravec considers the threat that an individual faces, which is assessed by reference to the capability and intent of hostile actors, the vulnerability of that individual to such an attack, and the impact that such an attack would have on the interests of the state.

"As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the royal family, and would be living abroad for the majority of the time, his position had materially changed. In those circumstances, protective security would not be provided on the same basis as before. However, he would, in particular and specific circumstances, be provided protective security when in Great Britain."

The hearing will continue over the next three day in private. A decision on the matter is expected at a later date.