In a confrontation over Prince Harry’s “Life is at Stake” on his Britain’s security system, his lawyer has warned the court’s appeal on the last day of Duke’s legal challenge.
The Duke of Sussex Royalty and Public Figure (Ravec) is challenged to dismiss its High Court claim against the Home Office on the decision of the Executive Committee to conserve the claim that it should receive a separate degree of security in the UK.
In his closing submission for Duke, Shaheed Fatima Casey told the court: “One should not forget the human dimension in this case. A person is sitting behind me whose safety, whose safety, whose safety, and whose life is at stake.
“A person is sitting behind me, who is being told that he is getting a special bossoc process when he knows and has experienced a process that is clearly inferior in every case.”
What his barrister said in what the case is for him and his family, the 40 -year -old Duke, who lives in the US, participated in the royal courts of justice of royal courts in Central London for a two -day hearing.
After arriving at around 10.10 am on Wednesday, Harry could be seen talking with his legal team members wearing a dark blue suit, taking notes and quietly during parts of the hearing.
When the proceedings were stopped in the afternoon, Duke was being dropped from the court by his security details, when a member of the public shouted his support for him in a dramatic outbreak, saying: “If you are a member of the press, you are not in England.”
Explaining how the decisions on Harry’s security were made in “a unique set of circumstances”, a lawyer of the house office told the court in the morning: “There is nothing about the announcement of the appellant in January 2020 that he was to back down from his role in the royal family and spend most of his time abroad.”
In his oral performances, Sir James ED Casey said: “It was a category of its own.”
Following the appeal, retired High Court Judge Sir Peter Lane ruled last year that Ravic’s verdict, Duke and Duchess of Sussex left as senior working royals in early 2020.
Ravic has entrusted the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police, the cabinet office and the royal domestic domestic, and entrusted the responsibility from the Home Office on the provision of protective security arrangements for the royal family and others.
Ms. Fatima had earlier said that it came up with a “separate and so -called Bespok process” for Ravic Harry.
He continued: “The appellant does not accept that ‘BESPOKE’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been single for a separate, inappropriate and inferior treatment.”
Ms. Fatima told the judges that the Bispok process involved Ravic, given why Harry would participate in a special program “even though it is clearly irrelevant to the question of safety”.
The Home Office is defending the appeal, challenging the court first, “the wood for the trees involves a constant failure, only reads the available proposals by reading small parts of evidence, and now the decision, outspoken out of reference and ignores the totality of the picture”.
Parts of Wednesday’s hearing before Sir Jyofree Wose, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Aids were privately heard without press or public members, although Duke was allowed to live.
During the public part of the hearing, Sir James said that the committee does not move “through comparison” among people under its remit.
He said: “This is for a clear reason that it is not highly likely that two cases will be really similar when the implemented comprehensive guiding principles are judged.”
At Tuesday’s hearing, Ms. Fatima told the court that the failure to evaluate a risk management board for Harry meant that Ravic did not have a “expert analysis” to determine whether Duke should be treated like people in the “other VIP” category.
He continued: “Ravic did not take a proper decision as the appellant’s position is in line with them in that ‘other VIP’ category.
“If the judge had evaluated the evidence properly, he would have reached that conclusion.”
Ms. Fatima also said: “The appellant’s case is not that she should automatically be entitled to the same security as she was earlier given when she was a working member of the royal family.
“The case of the appellant is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and be subject to the same process as if another person is considered by Ravic for protective security, unless there is no reason.”
At the end of the hearing, Judge Sir Geoffrey Vose said that the court of appeal’s decision would be given in writing at a later date, which was “most likely” to be before Easter: “clearly we would take our time to consider our decisions.”
