Cachella Smith
Live reporter

The Court of Appeal today heard Prince Harry's case for appeal against a High Court ruling that backed a move to decide on security for his visits to the UK on a case-by-case basis.

The Duke of Sussex arrived at court shortly after 09:30 BST and sat at the centre of the room throughout proceedings.

He has previously emphasised the importance of safety for his children - saying he wants them to feel at home in the UK.

Harry's barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, said he had been "singled out" for inferior treatment - as she argued the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) did not follow its standard procedures in getting expert analysis on the risks facing the duke before making the decision to change his security arrangements.

Last year, the High Court ruled that there had been no unlawfulness in Ravec's decision.

In written submissions for today's hearing, the government's barrister said the appeal case puts forward arguments based on "small parts of the evidence" - he said it involves "a continued failure to see the wood for the trees".

The hearing will resume for a second day tomorrow with more from the government's case, with a final judgement due in writing at a later date.

We'll be closing our live coverage for the day shortly - but there's more in our story on the day's proceedings in the Court of Appeal here.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

That’s it for today – the hearing has wrapped up and will continue tomorrow at 10:30 GMT.

Prince Harry has left the courtroom, and journalists, lawyers and court staff are slowly filing out.

Sir James Eadie KC hasn’t yet finished outlining the Home Office position, so he’ll be picking up for the first part of the morning.

Then, the court will sit for part of the day in private – meaning the press won’t be able to sit in on proceedings for this bit.

That's because there are sensitive security arrangements for members of the Royal Family and other VIPs that must be discussed.

Tom Symonds
Correspondent, reporting from court

Sir James Eadie KC, the government's senior barrister, starts with the explanation that Prince Harry hasn't had his security completely removed.

Rather, he says, a government committee decided protection would not be provided "on the same basis" because of Harry's change of status to no longer being a working royal and because he's living abroad.

"We are in territory in which there are no right or wrong answers, there are matters of judgement against broad, soft-edged criteria... in which the security expertise of those involved is likely be critical," he tells the three judges.

In other words, when Harry needs protection, it's provided on a case-by-case basis.

But the Home Office says this is a valid approach and the committee which decided to take it did nothing wrong.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

Sir James Eadie KC is now at his feet and addressing the court - he'll be setting out arguments on behalf of the government for the remainder of the afternoon.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

More from Prince Harry's barrister Shaheed Fatima, who is continuing to address the court arguing a previous judge, who considered the case last year, made mistakes.

On the decision Ravec took not to ask its Risk Management Board to make a new assessment of the prince's security, when he decided to step back from royal duties in early 2020.

She says the quality of the "reasoning" for taking this approach should have been "high" because "the safety of [Prince Harry] justifies the need for particularly cogent reasoning".

In her written submissions, Fatima says the previous judge wrongly concluded that the committee could make decisions on Harry's security without getting an analysis of the risk by a separate specialist body, because obtaining that analysis was “expressly required” by Ravec's terms of reference.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, one of the three Court of Appeal judges, has interrupted Shaheed Fatima to ask for some clarifications.

For the moment, the hearing remains on whether there needed to be a risk management board (RMB) assessment before a decision was taken over the duke's security.

Sir Geoffrey asks: "What if there doesn't have to be an RMB [assessment]? Why is that reasoning so flawed?"

Harry's barrister responds: "When you're looking at the material, I'm asking you to see whether there is a clear, logical and convincing explanation.

"I'm suggesting the reasoning we see is not clear."

There are parts of Shaheed Fatima's case that she cannot go into fully and which will be heard in the closed session tomorrow, she adds.

"I will hopefully show you what the RMB does in more detail, when I can make more candid submissions showing you. It will be my submission that there are things that the RMB does, very significant things, views that it gives that are now being done by others."

Prince Harry's barrister Fatima has turned to errors she is arguing were made in the previous High Court judgement.

She focuses on the 2017 Ravec terms of reference - which are repeatedly referenced in the original judgement - and whether they required the committee to complete a risk analysis by the Risk Management Board (RMB).

Harry's lawyers say no RMB analysis was taken prior to the decision to downgrade his security.

Fatima argues there are flaws in how the judge treated the terms of reference - among which is his agreement with Home Office's position that "this document and the other later terms of reference cannot be treated as hard-edged policy documents".

"He treated it as something optional, and we say that's where he got off on completely the wrong foot," she says.

Image source, Getty Images

As the court session gets underway, let's take a minute to look at what Harry and Meghan have got up to since stepping down as senior royals in January 2020.

The couple have launched different projects - including NGO The Archewell Foundation and Archewell Audio Productions.

They've also had their separate ventures - with Harry publishing memoire The Spare and Meghan pursuing various lifestyle initiatives including her recent Netflix series With Love, Meghan and a collection of products under her As Ever brand.

Just today, the first episode of Meghan's new podcast Confessions of a Female Founder was published.

• Yesterday, our senior royal correspondent, Daniela Ralph, considered Meghan's popularity for BBC InDepth

As we reported a moment ago, the court has resumed and Harry's barrister Shaheed Fatima KC is continuing to present his case to the Court of Appeal judges.

Our correspondents in court are poised to bring you the key lines.

The judges and lawyers are back from their lunch break and court is now resuming.

Prince Harry is sitting in the same seat in court as he was this morning.

As a quick reminder, this is a two-day hearing with tomorrow's proceedings due to be partially held in secret, and a with a written judgement due at a later date.

Stay with us as we bring you the latest developments from court and analysis from our correspondents.

Image source, Carly B. Talbot

Prince Harry is now in the UK for a court case over his security arrangements, but in June 2020 he and Meghan moved to California.

The couple no longer have an official UK residence, after being asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage, a Grade-II listed property on the Windsor estate.

The prince has come back to the UK from time to time.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex returned to the UK together for the late Queen's Platinum Jubilee in June 2022, and her funeral in September of that year.

Harry then attended his father's coronation in May 2023, without Meghan

In February 2024, he flew back for a 45-minute meeting with Charles after Buckingham Palace announced that the King had cancer.

Later that year, he attended a memorial service for his uncle, Lord Robert Fellowes.

Image source, PA Media

The case we're hearing today hinges on Harry's decision to step down as senior royal. So let's look back at when and why this happened.

Prince Harry and Meghan met in 2016 and married two years later. They stepped down as senior royals in January 2020.

Angry about media intrusion, at the time they said: "We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen."

Harry remains a prince and is fifth in line to the throne.

The couple kept their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles, but are no longer addressed as His or Her Royal Highness (HRH). Harry also gave up his military titles.

When Harry's father, Charles, became King, the couple's two children became Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

Today's hearing at the Court of Appeal will consider the High Court's dismissal of Prince Harry's claim in February 2024.

The prince kickstarted legal action in September 2021 following the earlier decision to downgrade his protection and give him security on a case-by-case basis when he visits the UK.

Last year, the court ruled there had been no unlawfulness in the decision taken by Ravec, the Home Office committee which decides what level of protection to provide to royals and VIPs.

Even if there had been any "procedural unfairness" it would not have changed the outcome, the High Court judge said.

A lot of that hearing had been heard in private - however the judge set out that the approach of having a "bespoke" arrangement for Prince Harry was "legally sound".

Earlier, we reported a mix of lines from both written submissions and oral arguments in the court.

Prince Harry's barrister referred to her "skeleton argument" submitted in writing before the court date - so what is that?

A skeleton argument is a written summary of a case that includes the main arguments, outlines background facts and refers to the law that will be relied upon and how the case relates to it.

It also includes a timeline of relevant events and responds to issues raised by the other party.

Skeleton arguments are usually prepared for appeal hearings.

Prince Harry's barrister Shaheed Fatima KC has started arguing his case to appeal a High Court ruling that found a decision to downgrade his security arrangements in the UK was lawful.

If you are just joining us, here is a quick recap of what has happened:

• Prince Harry was "singled out for different unjustified and inferior treatment", his barrister said at the start of the hearing, as she suggested Ravec did not follow its own standard procedures when opting to move his security arrangements to a case-by-case basis
• According to her argument, there does not appear to have been any formal meeting, nor official notes, regarding the duke's security

• Fatima has further set out that the prince did not have access to the detail on how decisions about his security were being made - she said that means he hasn't had the chance to put his case forward
• Today's hearing is an appeal against a previous judgement, and Fatima has argued that the previous judge did not properly evaluate the evidence
• Meanwhile, barristers representing the Home Office will begin to address the court once Fatima has finished. Their written submissions put forward that Harry is relying on "an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process"

The Court of Appeal has been sitting now for more than two-and-a-half hours, so the judges and lawyers are taking a break for lunch.

They are due to return around 14:00 BST.

Shortly before the court went for lunch, Prince Harry's barrister, Shahid Fatima KC, told the judges she was running a bit behind time with her arguments - adding that she would ask her Home Office counterpart if she could have some of his time later.

As a reminder, this is a two-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, with a written judgement due at a later date.

Tomorrow's proceedings are due to be partially held in secret, in order to protect the secrecy of security arrangements for the Royal Family and other VIPs.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

There are more than 50 people in the room for this hearing - including the three judges, court staff, barristers and lawyers, members of the press and, of course, Prince Harry himself.

The Duke of Sussex is sitting in the middle of the court room, facing the judges, two rows behind his barrister.

Most of the press are sitting behind him on separate benches.

Harry seems to be listening intently as his barrister sets out his case, sometimes with his head tilted down.

There are several folders and a bottle of water on the desk in front of him.

While Prince Harry's barrister continues to set out her case for appeal in court, we can bring you some more details from the written submissions for the Home Office.

As a reminder, the duke is appealing a previous finding that the government acted lawfully when it took the decision to downgrade his security protection in the UK to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

We've not yet heard from those representing the Home Office in court - but barrister Sir James Eadie KC has suggested in writing that this appeal "involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees".

"[The Home Office] has, and continues to, treat [the duke] in a bespoke manner. He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec," the submission reads.

"Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context."

Eadie suggests the appeal puts forward arguments based on "small parts of the evidence" which are out of context.

Tom Symonds
Correspondent, reporting from court

The Home Office court filing suggests that Prince Harry's claim to have been treated unfairly may be based on a comparison of his security with that of the Royal Family.

As we've been reporting this morning, the details of the measures put in place by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) have been redacted for security reasons.

However the Home Office submission states: "The essence of [Prince Harry's] challenge under Ground 2 is that [the Home Office] was required to admit him permanently into the cohort of those entitled to Protective Security at public expense... because his position could not be rationally distinguished from that of the 15 [redacted text] for whom Ravec authorises Protective Security."

Unfortunately we can't currently confirm whether this is a reference to the Royal Family.

But the Home Office agrees with a previous judge who considered the case that Harry is relying on “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process” and a “mechanistic, overly literal approach”.

Prince Harry has previously argued that the safety of his family lies at the heart of this case.

He and Meghan have sought to keep their two young children, Prince Archie, 5, and Princess Lilibet, 3, largely out of the public eye.

Images shared of their children in the past, including on last year's official Christmas card, have seen them facing away from the camera.

As we've been reporting this morning, their security has been cited by Harry as among reasons the family moved away from the UK.

He told the court in a previous hearing: "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."

Image source, PA Media