Prince Harry’s lawyer says the right to security and safety ‘couldn’t be more important to any of us’ in court challenge against Home Office decision to strip him of armed police guards when he visits Britain

Prince Harry's lawyer has said the right to security 'couldn't be more important' as the Duke challenged the Home Office over its decision to strip him of his armed police guards when he visits Britain.

The 39-year-old's taxpayer-funded protections were removed after he stepped back as a senior royal and moved to California with his wife Meghan in 2020.

This week's case in London is consider the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, to revoke its automatic right to such protection.

Harry says he does not feel safe taking his family to Britain without police protection, and that private bodyguards cannot match the police's powers and ability to gather intelligence.

At the start of today's trial at the High Court, the Duke's lawyer Shaheed Fatima KC said: 'This case is about a person's right to safety and security, there can be no right for any of us that is of greater importance.'

Harry – seen outside the High Court in London in March – had his taxpayer-funded protections removed after he stepped down as a senior royal and moved to California with Meghan Markle

Harry says he does not feel safe taking his family to Britain without police protection. Pictured: with Meghan in London in 2020

Ms Fatima said in written comments that the risk the Duke faces “arises from his birth and current status as the son of HM the King”.

She continued: 'The claimant's consistent position has been and remains that he should be granted state security in light of the threats/risks he faces.'

The lawyer later said the duke is “clearly” part of the group to be considered by Ravec.

Ms Fatima said: 'The consequence of the February 20 decision is that Ravec only has to think about protective security for the Duke of Sussex when he visits Britain.

'That does not mean that he is no longer one of the clients that Ravec must take into account; he clearly is.'

The lawyer said Ravec should have considered the impact on Britain's reputation if there had been a successful attack on Harry and argued that the 'case by case' process led to 'excessive uncertainty'.

But rejecting her arguments, Sir James Eadie KC of the Home Office said the duke had been treated in a lawful, “bespoke manner” over his security and that public resources were “finite”.

He said in written submissions: 'In considering whether protective security should be provided to such an individual… Ravec takes into account the risk of a successful attack on that individual.

In summary, Ravec considers the threat faced by an individual, which is assessed by the capability and intent of hostile actors, the vulnerability of that individual to such an attack, and the impact that such an attack would have on the interests of the state.'

He continued: 'As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the Royal Family and would live abroad most of the time, his position had materially changed.

'Under those circumstances, protective security would not be provided on the same basis as before. However, in special and specific circumstances, he would be provided with protective security while in Britain.”

Sir James continued: “Ravec has treated the claimant accordingly.

'He is no longer part of the group of individuals whose security position continues to be regularly assessed by Ravec. But he will be brought back into the cohort under the right circumstances.'

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle with security, their faces blurred, in New Zealand in 2018

The lawyer said Ravec's job was to balance the risk of a public figure being attacked with the “finite” nature of police funding.

And he said it was “frankly rational” and lawful for Ravec to consider the Duke of Sussex stepping back because a working royal family was a factor.

'The fact that the Duke of Sussex cannot cease being a member of the Royal Family is banal, but does not provide further information about the balance that Ravec must strike. The decisions were made in that knowledge.'

The lawyer added: 'The decision – and its practical implementation for the claimant's subsequent visits – recognized that he nevertheless occupies a special and unusual position so that it may be appropriate to provide him with protective security in certain circumstances.'

The High Court heard that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was raised as part of the decision on the safety of the Duke of Sussex.

Sir James said: 'Ravec was aware of the wider “impact” following the tragic death of the claimant's mother and this was also an issue referred to by the Royal Household.'

The lawyer added that there would be “likely to be significant public unrest if there were a successful attack on the claimant.”

But he continued: 'The decision and subsequent application constituted a lawful consideration of relevant factors in weighing risk, impact and threat.'

The High Court was told that Ravec requires protective security requests on a case-by-case basis, with 28 days' notice.

The case continues.