Court listings show that Prince Harry will find out whether the outcome of his appeal in his long-running battle over his security arrangements in the UK tomorrow afternoon

Prince Harry at the High Court last month (Image: Anadolu via Getty Images)

Prince Harry is soon set to find out the outcome of his Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements while in the UK. The Duke of Sussex has been challenging the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country.

At a two-day hearing last month, barristers for Harry told the Court of Appeal that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety, security and life are “at stake”. The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposes the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that Ravec’s decision was taken in a “unique set of circumstances” and that there was “no proper basis” for challenging it.

Harry’s lawyers say he was singled out for inferior treatment (Image: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publis)

And now court listings show that Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis will hand down their ruling at the Royal Courts of Justice in London at 2pm tomorrow afternoon.

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household. Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that its decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful.

Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back” from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”. After Ravec’s decision, al Qaida called for Harry “to be murdered”, and his security team was informed that the terrorist group had published a document which said his “assassination would please the Muslim community”, Ms Fatima added.

Harry with wife Meghan(Image: Anadolu via Getty Images)

She continued that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process’”. She said: “The appellant 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.”

Ms Fatima added: “The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family.

“The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.”

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that the duke’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.

He continued that Ravec treats the duke in a “bespoke manner”, which was “better suited” to his circumstances. Sir James said: “He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec. “Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.”

Harry attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, and could be seen taking notes and talking with part of his legal team during the appeal. Parts of the hearing were held in private, meaning the press and public could not be in court, to discuss confidential matters.