In a High Court challenge against the Home Office's decision to remove armed police guards during his visits to Britain, Harry's barrister highlighted the paramount importance of the right to safety and security. Shaheed Fatima stated, "This case is about the right to safety and security of a person; there could not be a right of greater importance to any of us."
Emphasizing the consistent stance of the Duke, the lawyer argued, "The claimant's consistent position has been - and remains - that he should be given state security in light of the threats/risks he faces."
Shaheed Fatima contended that Prince Harry is plainly part of the group considered by Ravec (the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures), and the decision in February 2020 limits this consideration only to when the Duke visits the UK.
The Duke's security detail became a subject of contention when taxpayer-funded protection was revoked after he stepped down as a senior working royal and relocated to Montecito with his family. In his statement, Prince Harry expressed concerns about the safety of bringing his family to Britain without police protection, emphasizing that private bodyguards cannot match the capabilities and intelligence-gathering capacity of the police.
The ongoing case in London will scrutinize the decision made by Ravec to withdraw Prince Harry's automatic right to state protection in February 2020.
