“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US. That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil.
“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too.”
Prince Harry is on a three-day High Court battle to reinstate his UK security.
He wants protection while visiting the UK and claims he and his family are in danger because of hostility toward him and his wife on social media and news media hounding them.
On day one, Fatima said that a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a “successful attack” on him meant the approach to his protection was “unlawful and unfair”.
The barrister said a “crucial” part of Ravec’s approach was an analysis carried out by the Risk Management Board (RMB), but it had chosen not to do this in Harry’s case.
She said it was the first time the body had decided to “deviate” from policy, with it adopting a “far inferior” procedure in relation to “critical safeguards”. In written arguments, Ms Fatima said Harry “has, unjustifiably, been treated less favourably than others”.
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 (Harry) ‘less favourably'”.
He said Ravec decided that “the bespoke process to be more effective, to allow more specific and informed consideration by Ravec of the threat and risk picture for each visit.
Sir James said it was “simply incorrect” to suggest that there was no evidence that the issue of impact was considered, adding that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was raised as part of the decision.
The judge is expected to rule at a later date. The case is one of five that Harry has pending in the High Court.
