Prince Harry: I don’t even know who decided I shouldn’t get police security

The Duke of Sussex has complained that he was not given the identities of those behind a decision to deny him police protection when he is in the UK, the High Court has heard.

He is challenging the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to withdraw the police protection that he and the Duchess of Sussex enjoyed as senior royals.

He has taken legal action against the Government, arguing that the decision made by Ravec, which is comprised of representatives from the police, Home Office and Royal household, was wrong as “he falls within the immediate line of succession”.

The Duke has also launched a libel action against the Mail on Sunday over its coverage of the case.

At a preliminary hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Swift set out the four grounds that form the basis of the Duke’s legal challenge.

They include the “over-rigid application” of Ravec policy and a “failure” to take into account “relevant considerations”.

The Duke has also argued that the committee’s conclusions were “unreasonable” and that “insufficient information” was provided about Ravec policy “and/or members or those involved in Ravec’s decision”.

Shaheed Fatima QC, the Duke’s barrister, who was accompanied in court by the Sussexes’ solicitor, Jenny Afia, handed the judge two letters "on the membership of Ravec".

But she suggested they had struggled to ascertain who sits on the committee.

Ms Fatima told the court they had “been asking about the membership", later adding that it was in relation to "the relevance of the claimant's knowledge about who he was dealing with and in what capacity".

The court heard that the Duke had been in correspondence with Sir Mark Sedwill, a senior civil servant who served as Cabinet Secretary from April 2018 until September 2020.

“We now know that entity is a member of Ravec,” Ms Fatima said, referring to the Cabinet Office.

The Duke is said to feel unable to return to the UK to see his family without police protection.

He has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to the relevant UK intelligence that is needed to keep his family safe.

He has insisted that he offered to pay for his own protection in January 2020 but that the offer was refused.

However, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, previously told the court that the offer of private funding was “irrelevant”.

Mr Palmer said in written submissions: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis.”

The preliminary hearings, which were largely held in private, concerned an application by the Duke and the Home Office for some information contained in court documents to be kept private.

Mr Justice Swift repeatedly rebuked Ms Fatima over her submissions, at one point telling her: “This is not a public inquiry into whether the committee reached the right decision or the wrong decision”, adding that it was a discussion about the legal merits of the case.

The judge said he would hand down his ruling at a later date.

Meanwhile, the Duke is embroiled in separate legal proceedings against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday.

A libel action lodged on his behalf on Wednesday is understood to relate to a story that suggested he had tried to keep the legal fight over his police protection secret.

He is also expected to argue that it was false and defamatory to allege that he lied about offering to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January 2020.

The article claimed that the offer to pay was not made in the Duke’s initial “pre-action” letters to the Home Office, which it said suggested that he expected British taxpayers to cover it.