In written submissions for the Duke of Sussex – some of which were redacted for confidentiality reasons – Shaheed Fatima KC said al Qaida had called for Harry “to be murdered” after Ravec’s decision in February 2020 to change the level of security the duke is given while in the UK.

She said that Harry’s security team were informed that the terrorist group had published a document which stated that his “assassination would please the Muslim community”.

Ms Fatima also told the court that Harry and the Duchess of Sussex were involved in a “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023 involving “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”.

She continued: “The judge wrongly and inappropriately deferred to Ravec in interpreting the terms of reference and evaluation criteria for decision-making.

“The judge failed to appreciate the role of the RMB (risk management board) analysis in Ravec’s decision-making.

“The judge erred in finding that the terms of reference granted Ravec the discretion to simply not use the terms of reference in certain cases.”

In her submissions at the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Duke of Sussex, Shaheed Fatima KC said that Ravec’s reasoning to not carry out a risk management board (RMB) assessment “does not stack up”.

She said: “The lack of scrutiny led to the judge wrongly accepting Ravec’s evidence, and that evidence says that a so-called ‘bespoke’ process makes much more sense for the appellant than the RMB.

“It does not make sense when one considers in detail the expert analysis that the RMB assessment involves. It is impossible to speculate whether the appellant would be in the same position had he been given the benefit of the process.”

She later said: “We say in the present case that the need for the RMB assessment was part of the procedure, but also a benefit.”

Prince Harry’s lawyer has argued that Ravec’s failure to carry out a risk management board assessment in reviewing his security means that they did not receive the “expert analysis” required to consider if he should be treated similarly to others in the ‘VIP category’.

She continued: “Ravec did not make a reasonable decision because the appellant’s position is analogous to those in that ‘other VIP’ category.

“Had the judge properly evaluated the evidence, he would have come to that conclusion.”

Ravec is the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, which decides the level of protection given by the security services to members of the Royal Family and other high profile people in the UK.

Meghan Markle has made a rare acknowledgement of the “media backlash” she’s experienced in recent years.

Analysis from Statista in 2020 showed that Markle received overwhelmingly negative media coverage with 43 per cent of articles deemed negative, 36 per cent neutral, and only 20 per cent positive.

Read the full article here:

In written submissions to the Court of Appeal, Shaheed Fatima KC, for the Duke of Sussex, said: “This appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person.”

She continued: “On January 8 2020, (the Duke of Sussex) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they considered they were not being protected by the institution, but they wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the royal family.”

Ms Fatima later said that Harry was “not in a position to make any informed representations to Ravec”.

She added: (His) security does not appear to have been discussed at any formal Ravec meeting and there are no official notes or detailed minutes recording the approach to be taken to (his) security and the rationale for it.”

Opening the Duke of Sussex’s case at the Court of Appeal, his barrister Shaheed Fatima KC said: “When Ravec made its February 2020 decision about the appellant’s protective security, it did not apply its own terms of reference to that decision-making process.”

She continued to say 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 added that Prince Harry does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’, and that it is his submission that he has been singled out for “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.”

The Duke of Sussex’s appeal against the dismissal of his legal challenge over the level of protection he is given while visiting the UK has begun at the Court of Appeal.

Harry is challenging the dismissal of his High Court legal action 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 taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.

Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was not irrational or procedurally unfair.

The Home Office, which has legal responsibility for Ravec’s decisions, is opposing the appeal, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court that decisions were taken on a “case-by-case” basis.

Harry was in attendance as the hearing began on Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London.

The appeal, before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis, is due to conclude on Wednesday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.

The Duke of Sussex entered the courtroom where his appeal will be heard a few minutes before the hearing was set to begin.

Harry, in a dark suit, sat in the back row of the court behind his barristers and next to his solicitor.

He sat with a notepad, pen and a bottle of water.