Prince Harry’s ‘Unusual’ Exit From Royal Life Led To Downgraded Security

Prince Harry‘s unconventional decision to step back from royal duties and spend most of his time abroad prompted RAVEC to deviate from standard protocol when deciding to cut his publicly funded security.

The barrister representing the Home Office, Sir James Eadie KC, made the argument during the second hearing for the Duke’s appeal.

Prince Harry’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, had previously stated during her opening argument that RAVEC failed to obtain a risk analysis from the Risk Management Board before making the decision, which is a standard procedure in determining such matters.

On the second day of Harry’s appeal over his downgraded security, the Home Office lawyer, James Eadie KC, shared more insight into why the decision was made without consulting a Risk Management Board.

“RMB risk analysis is the usual approach in usual cases,” the barrister told the High Court during the proceedings,” per the Daily Mail. “But there is nothing about the appellant’s [Prince Harry’s] announcement in January 2020 that he was to step back from his role in the Royal family and spend most of the time abroad, that was usual.”

The barrister also remarked that it was “hard to imagine” anyone more suitable than the chair of RAVEC to sign off on how the Duke’s security arrangements should change to accommodate “the unique and unusual circumstances.”

He went on to refute the claim from Harry’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, that the former senior royal was being “singled out” for “inferior treatment.”

“He was not being singled out – on the contrary, the process being adopted had positive advantages for him,” Eadie KC told the court.

Arguing for Harry, Fatima KC insisted that RAVEC should not have deviated from their original guidelines of obtaining a risk analysis.

She also noted that the Duke doesn’t see the new “bespoke” arrangement as something better but rather as a vindictive act seemingly implemented in response to his decision to quit senior royal life.

She said, “The appellant [the Duke of Sussex] does not accept that bespoke means better – in fact, in his position, it means he has been singled out for different, inferior treatment.”

Meanwhile, Fatima KC reiterated her stance that the judge who previously ruled in favor of RAVEC acted wrongly.

She had earlier argued in the first hearing that the judge did so by “wrongly and inappropriately” deferring to the committee on the basis of their decision-making and failing to “appreciate the role of the RMB,” per the Daily Mail.

At the time, the high-profile lawyer also noted that “the judge erred in finding that the terms of reference granted Ravec the discretion to simply not use the terms of reference in certain cases.”

The latest proceedings in Harry’s case were held behind closed doors for the most part due to some of the evidence presented being deemed “highly confidential.”

“Some of the evidence in this case, which is being placed before the Court of Appeal, has been agreed between the parties to be highly confidential,” the judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, ruled during the first proceedings.

They added, “That evidence relates to security arrangements and threat levels and assessments for the claimant and other public figures” and “would be of interest to anyone wishing to harm a person within the scope of the security arrangements.”