Harry treated ‘less favourably’ in UK security decision, High Court told

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Ms Fatima said Ravec’s decision was taken when the duke was “a full-time working member of the royal family” and “plainly still in the Ravec cohort”. “Ravec should have considered, in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant.” Ms Fatima said Harry’s “knowledge/understanding was limited” and that he should have been allowed to make representations to Ravec before the change in his security. 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 Shaheed Fatima KC, for Harry Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written arguments that the decision “not to undertake an RMB analysis but to conduct a more bespoke, targeted assessment does not amount to treating ‘less favourably’”. He said: “Ravec was aware of the wider ‘impact’ following the tragic death of mother, and this was also a matter referenced by the royal household.” Sir James added: “Ravec gave greater weight to the impact on state functions being lessened as a result of the change, over likely significant public upset were a successful attack on to take place.” The barrister said it was decided that Harry would not be provided protective security “on the same basis as before” due to him no longer being a working member of the royal family and living abroad most of the time.